NOV  141905      * 


Division   J5S2_3<8f] 
Section  »  »     I    »  T~ 


By 

the  same  Author 

THE  SPIRIT  CHRISTLIKE 

By 

the  same  Author 

and  others 

THE 

OLD  PURITANISM 

AND 

THE  NEW   AGE 

Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

An  Historical,  Exegetical,  and  Inter- 
pretative Discussion  of  the  Use  of  Old 
Testament  Prophecy  by  Jesus  and  of 
His  Attitude  towards  it    ::  ::  :: 


By 

Charles  S.  Macfarland,  Ph.D.  (Yale) 

Minister  of  the  Maplewood  Congregational  Church  of  Maiden,  Massachusetts 


With  an  Introduction  by 

Frank  K.  Sanders,  Ph.D.,  D.D. 

Dean   of  the   Divinity  School  of  Yale   University 


G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons 

New    York    and    London 

Gbe  Iknicfcerbocfcer  press 

1905 


Copyright,  1905 

BY 

CHARLES  S.  MACFARLAND 


Ube  Ikntcfeerbocfeer  press,  flew  Korfc 


TO   MY  WIFE 


"The  spirit  of  the  Lord  Jahwe  is  upon  me  ;  because  Jahwe 
hath  anointed  me  to  preach  good  tidings  unto  the  meek  ;  he 
hath  sent  me  to  bind  up  the  broken-hearted,  to  proclaim  liberty 
to  the  captives,  and  the  opening  of  the  prison  to  them  that  are 
bound  ;  to  proclaim  the  year  of  Jahwe's  favor." 

Isaiah  lxi.,  i,  2. 


"  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is  upon  me, 

Because  he  anointed  me  to  preach  good  tidings  to  the 

poor  : 
He  hath  sent  me  to  proclaim  release  to  the  captives, 
And  recovering  of  sight  to  the  blind, 
To  set  at  liberty  them  that  are  bruised, 
To  proclaim  the  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord.     .      .    ." 

To-day  hath  this  scripture  been  fulfilled  in  your  ears." 

Luke  iv.,  18-21. 


"  Think  not  that  I  came  to  destroy  the  law  or  the  prophets 
I  came  not  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil." 

Matthew  v.,  17. 


INTRODUCTION 

THE  most  noteworthy  and  far-reaching  contribution 
of  the  past  quarter  century  to  the  scholarly  yet 
reverent  study  of  the  Scriptures  has  been  the  unre- 
served adoption  of  the  historical  method  of  approach. 
When  the  Bible  is  viewed  as  a  noble  religious  litera- 
ture, the  record  in  varied  form  of  the  gradual  disclosure, 
through  an  historic  people,  of  an  adequate  idea  of  God 
in  His  active  relationship  with  the  physical  and  moral 
universe,  a  new  conception  of  its  dominant  value  is  sure 
to  be  developed.  In  place  of  an  acceptance  based  upon 
its  definite,  unchanged  transmission  of  the  formulated 
declarations  of  God,  there  tends  to  grow  up  a  reliance 
upon  the  Bible  because  it  is  a  faithful  transcript  of  the 
most  pertinent  human  religious  experience,  reflecting 
all  phases  of  the  normal  growth  of  a  real  consciousness 
of  relationship  with  God  and  formulating  successive 
approximations  to  eternal  truth.  The  Bible  becomes  a 
manual  of  life  rather  than  an  authoritative  digest  of 
decisions. 

This  change  of  emphasis  is  not  to  be  deplored.  It 
does  have  the  effect  of  making  prominent  the  human 
element  in  the  Bible,  but  only  because  the  normal 
share  of  man  in  the  revelation  of  divine  truth  has 
been  overlooked  in  times  past.  It  exhibits  revelation 
as  a  progressing  achievement,  made  more  definite 
and  final  in  character  in  proportion  to  the  widening 


viii  Introduction 

experience  and  growing  competency  of  its  instruments. 
The  prophets  of  the  exile  and  later  talked  in  terminology 
far  nearer  to  that  of  the  matured  religious  thinker  of 
to-day  than  did  those  of  the  Assyrian  conquest  of  the 
eighth  century.  The  Israel  of  the  later  day  was  not 
only  a  sadder  and  more  thoughtful  people,  but  one  far 
more  enlightened  and  capable,  prepared  by  bitter  ex- 
perience to  realize  the  breadth  of  human  need  and  the 
consequent  greatness  and  goodness  of  God. 

This  progress  of  revelation  is  not  exhibited  to  the 
historical  student  of  the  Bible  as  undefined.  It  rather 
appears  as  a  steady  development  toward  an  anticipated 
culmination  in  the  perfect  revelation  of  God,  given  defi- 
nition and  illustration  through  the  life  and  teachings 
of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Lord  of  all.  Recognizing  him  as  at 
once  the  goal  of  this  recorded  religious  development 
and  the  standard  by  which  it  may  at  all  stages  be  esti- 
mated, the  student  is  only  confirmed  in  his  glad  recog- 
nition of  the  whole  course  of  previous  history  as  an 
expression  in  some  fashion  of  the  active  purpose  of 
God,  and  in  his  high  estimate  of  the  value  of  the  record 
preserved  for  our  use. 

This  emphasis  upon  the  historical  method  of  approach 
to  the  Bible  has  thus  directly  led  to  a  renewed  enthusi- 
asm for  the  investigation  of  two  great  problems.  On 
the  one  hand,  attention  has  been  centred  upon  the  his- 
toric Christ,  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  There  is  a  great  desire 
to  know  him  at  first  hand,  not  merely  through  the 
loving  vision  of  his  earliest  interpreters,  but  as  he 
looked  and  spake  and  worked  and  thought.  The  end 
in  view  is  not  alone  the  purpose  which  is  so  well  stated 
in  the  preface  to  the  third  Gospel,  to  secure  an  assured 
basis  for  faith  in  him  as  Lord,  but  the  ability  to  get  his 
point  of  view  and  his  outlook  upon  the  world. 


Introduction  ix 

On  the  other  hand,  the  careful  study  of  the  personality 
and  words  of  Jesus  directs  attention  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment which  he  rescued  from  a  deadly  formalism  and 
reinterpreted  as  life  and  power.  That  which  appealed 
to  him  as  the  quickening  message  of  God  can  never  be 
regarded  as  an  antiquated  record.  Through  his  clear 
vision  its  testimony  may  be  read  afresh  in  its  vitality 
and  forcefulness.  If  he  realized  that  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Scriptures  bore  adequate  testimony  to  all  that  he 
was  to  be  and  do,  it  sends  us  with  renewed  interest  to 
a  study  of  its  pages. 

An  interesting  detail  of  modern  Biblical  scholarship 
is  the  reversal  of  opinion  which  has  taken  place  in  re- 
gard to  the  foreshadowing  in  the  Old  Testament  of  the 
historic  Christ.  That  he  was  anticipated  is  undeniable. 
"Art  thou  he  that  cometh  ?  "  was  a  natural  query  for  a 
Jew  to  make.  The  exact  method  of  his  foreshadowing 
has  been  a  matter  of  debate.  In  former  times  a  student 
of  Messianic  prophecy  sought  diligently  for  specific 
declarations  which  clearly  referred  to  the  Christ.  Often 
they  have  been  forced  to  adopt  unnatural  canons  of  in- 
terpretation or  to  conclude  that  many  of  the  prophetic 
writings  contained  nothing  of  Messianic  significance. 
Yet,  as  we  see  to-day,  it  is  truer  than  ever  that  all  pro- 
phecy is  Messianic,  foreshadowing  in  some  fashion  the 
consummation  that  was  to  be.  But  the  Messianic  im- 
pulse was  not  satisfied  by  the  mere  description  of  some 
trait  or  act  of  Jesus.  It  was  rather  exhibited  by  con- 
tributions to  the  broadening  of  the  religious  outlook 
of  the  prophet's  generation.  Amos,  for  instance,  says 
nothing  specifically  about  Jesus  or  about  the  Christ, 
yet  his  message  is  definitely  Messianic.  His  ethical 
emphasis  forced  a  broader  comprehension  of  the  char- 
acter of  God  and  of  His  relations  with  the  world;  and 


x  Introduction 

initiated  an  essential,  even  though  an  indirect,  step  in 
the  formulation  of  the  ideal  of  religious  leadership 
which  the  right  service  of  such  a  God  would  require. 
His  vision  was  limited,  but  he  was  looking  in  the  right 
direction.  His  successors  could  stand  upon  the  summit 
which  he  reached  and  see  far  ahead.  This  view  of 
prophecy  makes  it  all  Messianic.  Even  the  denuncia- 
tions of  a  Nahum  find  their  place,  for  Nineveh  was  a 
great  barrier  to  the  realization  of  prophetic  hopes. 

Much  of  the  justification  of  this  broad  interpretation 
of  the  Old  Testament  is  to  be  found  in  the  attitude  of 
Jesus.  He  was  the  first  free  spiritual  expounder  of  the 
Scriptures.  His  insight  was  keen  and  his  judgment 
sound.  With  his  interpretations  the  conclusions  of 
reverent  but  scientific  scholarship  are  in  full  harmony. 

There  is,  then,  a  real  reward  in  store  for  him  who 
patiently  studies  the  methods  of  Jesus  in  interpretation 
as  revealed  in  his  use  of  the  Old  Testament.  This 
volume  skilfully  exhibits  these  methods  without  sacri- 
ficing, as  so  many  of  its  predecessors  have  done,  the 
religious  value  of  the  implied  judgments.  It  brings 
before  us  on  a  basis  of  exact  and  adequate  scholarship 
the  secret  of  the  vigorous  spirituality  and  the  unfailing 
enthusiasm  of  the  Jesus  of  history.  It  will  send  the 
student  with  fresh  eagerness  to  the  prophetic  writings 
which  our  L,ord  considered  as  an  indispensable  factor 
in  his  own  religious  growth,  whose  testimony  to  him- 
self he  accepted  as  direct  and  adequate. 

F.  K.  S. 

Yai,e  University, 
March,  1905. 


PREFACE 

THE  author  wishes  to  express  his  indebtedness  to 
the  lectures  of  Professors  Frank  C.  Porter,  Benja- 
min W.  Bacon,  Frank  K.  Sanders,  Edward  I,.  Curtis, 
and  George  B.  Stevens  of  Yale  University,  and  to  the 
work  done  under  the  guidance  of  these  eminent  scholars 
and  in  association  with  them,  during  six  years  as  a 
student  and  assistant  in  the  theological  and  Biblical  de- 
partments of  that  University.  Free  use  has  been  made 
of  material  gathered  in  this  way.  To  this  has  since 
been  added  the  study  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  in  its 
application  to  the  spiritual  needs  of  men,  during  five 
years  in  the  pastorate,  in  an  effort  to  interpret  Jesus  in 
the  light  of  those  needs.  The  works  mentioned  in  the 
Bibliography  have  been  consulted  in  so  far  as  they  re- 
late to  the  subject  under  discussion  and  the  gathered 
result  forms  a  considerable  part  of  the  contents  of  this 
work.  The  list  given  might  be  indefinitely  extended. 
Free  use  has  been  made  of  commentaries  and  of  other 
works  than  those  mentioned.  Special  help  has  come 
from  the  works  of  Professor  George  Adam  Smith,  Holtz- 
niann's  Handcommeiitar  zum  N.  T.,  Wendt's  Lehre 
Jesu,  and  Toy's  Quotations  in  the  New  Testament.  The 
Hebrew  text  of  Baer  and  Delitzsch  has  been  used  and 
generally  followed.  In  comparing  with  the  Greek, 
Swete's  edition  of  the  Septuagint  has  been  followed  in 
most  cases.     The  recent  edition  of  the  New  Testament 


Xll 


Preface 


in  Greek  by  Nestle  is  the  source  of  the  quotations  from 
the  Gospels.  The  text  has  also  been  compared  with 
Syriac  versions,  including  the  Sinaitic  Palimpsest,  but 
without  any  very  noteworthy  results.  Wherever  the 
author  has  not  made  his  own  English  translation,  the 
Revised  Version  has  been  followed. 

CHARI.KS  STEDMAN   MACFARI.AND. 
Madden,  Massachusetts, 
January  i,  1905. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  I 

PAGE 

Introductory i 

The  Problem 7 

The  Sources  of  the  Gospels 9 

CHAPTER  II 
Quotations  from  the  Prophetic  Books  by  Jesus       .      14 

1.  Those  Found  in  All  Three  Synoptists 

The  Mustard  Seed  —  Mark  iv.,  32  ;  Matthew  xiii.,  32  ; 

Luke  xiii.,  19  :  from  Daniel  iv.,  9  (12)  ...       15 

The  Fate  of  Prophetic  Preaching  —  Mark  iv.,  12  ; 
Matthew  xiii.,  13-15;  Luke  viii.,  10 ;  John  ix., 
39:  from  Isaiah  vi.,  9,  10 iS 

At  the  Temple  Cleansing — Mark  xi.,  17  ;  Matthew 
xxi.,  13,  14 ;  Luke  xix.,  46  :  from  Isaiah  lvi.,  7, 
and  Jeremiah  vii.,  11 25 

The  Unworthy  Husbandmen — Mark  xii.,  2;  Matthew 

xxi.,  33  ;  Luke  xx.,  9  :  from  Isaiah  v.,  1,2.         .       29 

The  Corner-Stone — Mark  xii.,  10,  11  ;  Matthew  xxi., 

42  ;  Luke  xx.,  17  :  from  Psalm  cxviii.,  22,  23        .       39 

The  Challenge  to  Scribal  Interpretation — Mark  xii., 
36,  37  ;  Matthew  xxii.,  43-45  ;  Luke  xx.,  42,  43  : 
from  Psalm  ex. ,  1 43 

xiii 


xiv  Contents 

PAGE 

The  Divided  Households — Mark  xiii.,  12  ;  Matthew 
x>  35.  36  ;  Luke  xii.,  52,  53  ;  Matthew  x.,  21  : 
from  Micah  vii.,  6 51 

2.  In  Mark  and  Matthew 
Jesus'  Rebuke  of  Unreality  in  Worship — Mark  vii.,  6, 

7  ;  Matthew  xv.,  8,  9:  from  Isaiah  xxix.,  13  .       54 

The  Sheep  Shall  be  Scattered  — Mark  xiv.,  27  ;  Mat- 
thew xxvi.,  31 :  from  Zechariah  xiii.,  7         .        .      57 

3.  In  Mark  only 
A  Doubtful   Passage — Mark  ix.,   48  :    from  Isaiah 

lxvi.,  24 61 

4.  In  Matthew  and  Luke 

John   the   Baptist  an    "Elijah" — Matthew  xi.,    10; 

Luke  vii.,  27:  from  Malachi  iii.,  1  ...       63 

Judgment  on  Capernaum  —  Matthew  xi.,    23;  Luke 

x.,  15:  from  Isaiah  xiv.,  13-15        ....      68 

5.  In  Matthew  only 
Mercy;  not  Sacrifice  —  Matthew  ix.,  13,  and  xii.,  7  : 

from  Hosea  vi.,  6 70 

6.  In  Luke  only 

The  Sermon  at  Nazareth  —  Luke  iv.,  18,  19:    from 

Isaiah  lxi.,  1,  2 73 

The  Stone   of  Stumbling  —  Luke  xx.,    18  (Matthew 

xxi.,44):  from  Isaiah  viii.,  14,  15 .        ...       84 

Reckoned  with  Transgressors — Luke  xxii.,  37  :  from 

Isaiah  liii.,  12 88 

7.  In  John  only 

God  the  Teacher— John  vi.,  45  :  from  Isaiah  liv.,  13    .  94 
An  Unknown  Reference — John  vii.,  38        .         .         -97 

A  Skilful  Defence — John  x.,  34  :  from  Psalm  lxxxii.,  6  99 
A  Significant  Interpolation — John  xiii.,  18:    from 

Psalm  xii.,  10  (9) 102 

A  Passage  which  Shows  how  Jesus  did  not  Use  Scrip- 
ture—John xv.,  25  :  from  Psalm  lxix.,  5  (4)  .         .  108 


Contents  xv 

CHAPTER  III 

PAGE 

Some  Conclusions  with  Regard   to   the   Sources 

and  Texts  oe  the  Quotations       .        .        .        .113 

The  Gospel  Sources 113 

The  Old  Testament  Sources 115 

The  Gospel  Renderings 116 

The  First  Gospel 117 

The  Second  Gospel 118 

The  Third  Gospel 118 

The  Fourth  Gospel 118 

Some  Noteworthy  Variations 119 

Formulas  of  Quotation 121 

Conclusion 127 


CHAPTER  IV 

The  Use  oe  Prophetic  Phrases,  Terms,   Figures, 

and  Language  by  Jesus 129 

In  General      .  129 

In  the  Fourth  Gospel 135 

Some  Special  Passages  .......  137 

The  Cry  on  the  Cross 140 

Jesus'  Use  of  the  Book  of  Daniel 143 

The  Apocalyptical  Discourses 144 

Old  Testament  Terms    .......  153 

"  The  Son  of  Man" 154 

"The  Kingdom  of  God" 158 


CHAPTER  V 

Some  Allusions,  by  Jesus,  to  the  Prophets  and  to 

Prophecy 165 

The  Triumphal  Entry 172 

The  Sign  of  Jonah  the  Prophet 174 


xvi  Contents 

CHAPTER  VI 

PAGE 

Jesus'  View  of  Prophecy  ;  His  Conception  of  it  ; 
and  His  Relation  to  it.  His  Idea  of  Fulfil- 
ment       179 

1.  Points  of  Contact  in  His  Preaching  and  Teaching  183 

2.  In  His  Sufferings  and  Lot 187 

3.  In  His  Work 188 

His  Choice  and  Use  of  Prophecy 190 

Applications  to  Himself 192 

His  Standard  of  Value 193 

The  Nature  of  Prophecy  as  understood  by  Jesus  .         .  194 

Jesus'  Messianic  Idea 197 

Fulfilment 198 

CHAPTER  VII 

Comparisons  of  Jesus'  View  of  Prophecy    .        .        .  204 

With  the  Rabbis 204 

With  Philo 211 

With  the  Synoptists 214 

With  the  Fourth  Gospel 223 

Some  Further  Comparisons 227 

CHAPTER  VIII 

Jesus'  View  of  His  Bible 235 

Bibliography 243 

Index 245 


Jesus  and  the  Prophets 


JESUS  AND  THE  PROPHETS 


CHAPTER  I 

INTRODUCTORY 

THE  hesitating  gleams  of  light  beheld  by  ancient 
patriarchs  and  prophets  became  in  Jesus  the  radi- 
ance of  an  eternal  glow  of  which  their  vision  was  but 
the  distant  glimmering  dawn  ;  and  the  preparing  law 
of  Moses  and  the  prophets  came  to  their  divine  com- 
pletion in  the  grace  and  truth  of  Jesus  Christ.  In  him 
God  was  with  men,  in  the  fulness  of  humanity  uplifted 
to  its  prophetic  and  divine  intention. 

The  supreme  and  sovereign  personage  of  history  is 
Jesus  Christ.  To  grasp  the  magnitude  of  Jesus'  per- 
son is  the  divinest  task  of  human  thought.  For  the 
intelligence  of  men  he  is  the  source  of  an  exhaustless 
contemplation.  The  loftiest  of  human  minds  ought  to 
be  as  humble  as  a  child  in  his  immeasurable  presence, 
and  with  the  wise  men  of  the  East  bring  but  their 
homage,  and  at  his  feet  cast  their  slight  morsels  of 
frankincense  and  myrrh  and  offer  at  his  shrine  the  in- 
cense of  their  genius.  This  supreme  Mind,  whose 
words  of  holy  wisdom  have  transformed  our  thought 
and  life,  knows  no  intellectual  companions.     Between 


2  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

liim  and  the  intellects  of  loftiest  reach  there  is  a  great 
gulf  fixed.  His  greatness,  unencompassed  by  the  mind 
of  man,  calls  for  the  heart.  For  the  interpretation  of 
his  ineffable,  transcendent  person,  only  the  clearness  of 
a  pure  heart  suffices.  The  attitude  of  men  to  Jesus  is 
the  final  and  determining  computer  of  their  length  and 
height  and  breadth  of  vision  and  of  life. 

He  is  the  way,  the  truth,  the  life  of  men.  They 
walk  in  holy  paths,  become  their  own  true  selves,  and 
only  truly  live,  in  the  larger,  deeper  meaning  of  their 
life,  as  they  interpret  him  in  thought,  are  moved  to 
worship  in  his  incomparable  presence,  and  follow  him 
in  life.     His  way  of  truth  becomes  the  path  of  life. 

All  our  upliftings  of  the  moral  ideal,  of  our  dis- 
coveries of  goodness,  are  but  the  mind  of  Christ  trans- 
lated to  the  minds  of  men. 

To  recover  his  unutterable  vision  is  the  loftiest  aim 
of  human  mind  and  heart.  To  see  his  God,  to  grasp 
his  interpretation  of  our  own  souls  is  the  supreme 
achievement  set  before  the  race.  His  consciousness, 
so  far  as  gained,  is  its  superlative  possession.  To  know 
Jesus  Christ  would  be  to  reach  the  height  and  depth  of 
spiritual  knowledge.  His  association  with  the  Infinite 
was  an  ideal,  unique,  transcendent,  ineffable,  and  un- 
searchable relation. 

And  the  reverent  man  who  seeks,  as  men  will  seek, 
and  ought  to  seek,  an  adequate  interpretation  of  Jesus 
to  the  intellect — be  at  the  same  time  his  heart  and 
motive  pure — will  find  himself  lifted  beyond  the  hu- 
manity in  which  he  stands,  will  find  himself  upon  the 
height  of  Tabor,  gazing  at  a  countenance  transfigured 
before  him,  at  a  face  which  shines  as  the  sun,  at  gar- 
ments white  as  the  light ;  while  the  cloud  of  a  divine 
glory  overshadows  him,  and  in  his  ears  resounds  the 


Introductory  3 

voice,  "  This  is  my  beloved  Son:  hear  ye  him."  The 
God  of  Jesus  is  the  highest  reach  of  human  thought. 
The  Jesus  of  God  knows  nothing  higher,  and  he  that 
hath  seen  him  hath  seen  the  Father. 

To  apprehend  the  moral  magnitude  and  contemplate 
the  spiritual  force  of  Jesus  is  the  solitarily  supreme  de- 
sire of  the  mind  of  man,  and  to  appropriate  his  life  the 
loftiest  endeavor  of  a  human  soul.  In  him  the  Infinite 
is  reachable  to  human  contemplation.  He  is  God  with 
us.  Through  him  attainable  to  human  aspiration,  he 
is  God  within  us.  The  Son  of  God,  the  witness  and 
the  earnest  of  the  heavenly  childhood  of  the  race,  he  is 
the  sovereign  possession  of  mankind. 

He  is  infinitely  above  and  beyond  all  creeds,  confes- 
sions, traditions,  and  bibles. 

The  teachings  of  Jesus  present  for  the  student  of  the- 
ology the  loftiest  theme  for  investigation  in  all  the  vast 
realm  of  Biblical  study  and  of  philosophic  thought. 
The  "  return  "  of  our  day  to  the  teachings  of  Jesus  we 
owe  to  our  schools  of  learning.  It  is  the  result  of  the 
comparatively  recent  study  of  the  theology  of  the  Bible. 
But  this  itself  may  also  be  assigned  to  that  mysterious 
movement  in  the  life  of  the  world,  largely  unaccounted 
for,  defying  analysis,  but  in  which,  under  the  guidance 
of  the  Spirit,  new  epochs  begin.  Our  ways  of  thinking 
change  and  old  faiths  are  seen  in  new  lights.  Our 
doubts  lead  us  to  Christ.  The  return  to  him  is  natural 
and  inevitable,  for  he  is  the  Teacher  of  teachers.  We 
are  always  in  danger  of  being  misled  by  the  interpreta- 
tions of  his  fallible  interpreters,  and  we  must  ever  and 
anon  scrutinize  our  ideas  and  conceptions  in  the  light 
of  Christ's  own  words  and  person.  We  must  go  back 
of  the  authority  of  the  disciple  to  that  of  the  Teacher 
himself. 


4  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

In  these  days  of  controversy  with  regard  to  the  in- 
spiration of  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  the  nature  and 
extent  of  their  authority,  it  is  a  matter  of  the  first  im- 
portance that  we  should  ascertain  Jesus'  view  of  the 
Scriptures  and  his  method  of  interpreting  them.  The 
question  as  to  how  far  the  revelation  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment is  of  permanent  value  for  the  Christian  Church 
must  rest  on  its  agreement  or  disagreement  with  the 
teachings  of  Christ.  The  same  is  equally  true  of  the 
New  Testament. 

When  Jesus  began  his  mission  in  the  world  he  did 
not  altogether  break  with  his  time,  nor  with  the  past. 
He  did  not  strive  after  absolute  originality  in  his  teach- 
ings. He  found,  at  his  hand,  institutions  and  ideas 
upon  which  he  could  build.  He  came  not  to  destroy 
these  but  to  fulfil  their  ideals.  Such  was  his  attitude 
toward  the  Holy  Scriptures.  He  accepted  them  as  a 
revelation  from  God.  He  held  these  writings  in  deep 
reverence.  He  ascribes  divine  authority  to  them,  in 
refuting  the  charges  of  his  opponents,  in  condemning 
their  practices,  and  in  the  establishment  and  defence  of 
his  own  teachings.  He  refers  to  them  as  the  ' '  Word 
of  God"  {see  Mark  vii.,  1-13).  He  meets  the  temp- 
tations of  the  adversary  by  Scripture  :  '  *  It  is  written  ' ' 
and  again  "  It  is  written."  In  teaching  in  the  Temple 
his  exposition  of  the  Bible  is  such  that  his  hearers  ex- 
claim :  ' '  How  knoweth  this  man  letters,  never  having 
been  taught  ?  ' '  His  teaching  is  rooted  and  grounded 
in  it.  He  everywhere  presupposes  the  Scriptures  and 
their  validity.  When,  in  certain  instances  (see  Matthew 
v.,  2iff.~)y  he  indicates  their  incompleteness  and  tempo- 
rary character,  or  appears  to  diverge  from  them,  it  is 
on  the  ground  of  a  distinction  between  their  real,  vital 
principle  and  that  which  is  formal,  local,  and  transitory. 


Introductory  5 

With  regard  to  the  real,  inner  meaning  he  ascribes 
authority.  He  does  not  even  disturb  the  letter  except 
when  abrogation  of  the  letter  executes  the  purpose  of 
the  spirit.  He  makes  neglect  of  scriptural  teaching,  in 
this  respect,  a  reproach  to  his  opponents.  ' '  Did  ye 
never  read  in  the  Scriptures  ?  ' '  and  again :  ' '  Go  and 
learn  what  they  mean  "  (Matthew  xxi.,  42,  and  Mat- 
thew ix.,  13). 

While  thus  he  is  enabled  to  quote  its  teachings  and 
to  use  its  language  freely,  he  is,  in  his  interpretation 
of  Scripture,  free  from  the  pernicious  influences  of  his 
time.  He  appeals  from  a  servile  literalism  to  an  inter- 
pretation which  looks  for  truths  and  principles.  While 
Jesus,  as  revealing  God,  was  in  a  relation,  not  of  oppo- 
sition, but  of  continuation  and  consummation  to  the 
revelation  which  was  before  him,  he  does  not  altogether 
adopt  the  conception  of  that  revelation  which  was 
dominant  in  his  age.  He  went  back  of  this  to  the 
more  original  and  purer  form  of  the  ancient  prophets 
and  makes  their  teachings  his  starting-point.  He  be- 
gins with  the  Old  Testament  teaching  and  revelation. 

Thus,  just  as  Christianity  grew  out  of  Judaism  and 
was  its  consummation,  so  the  New  Testament  is 
built  upon  the  Old.  The  two  are  in  vital  relationship. 
Both  Old  and  New  are  in  the  same  process  of  evolu- 
tion. Being  thus  bound  together,  they  explain  each 
other.  The  Old  is  in  the  New.  The  New  was  in  the 
Old.  Through  all  the  transition  from  Judaism  to  Chris- 
tianity, the  sacred  volume  of  the  nation  retained  author- 
ity as  a  divine  revelation. 

One  important  question  is — How  do  the  New  Testa- 
ment religious  teachers  deal  with  these  writings? 
What  is  their  attitude  towards  them  and  their  method 
of  interpreting  them  ?    A  still  more  important  question 


6  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

(and  not  the  same  question)  is— How  did  Jesus  Christ 
regard  them  and  use  them  ? 

In  answering  this  latter  question  criticism  has  gone 
in  three  directions,  i.  It  has  represented  Jesus  as  more 
or  less  slavishly  adopting  the  methods  of  his  time.  2. 
It  has  not  sufficiently  recognized  his  dependence.  3.  It 
has  granted  to  Jesus  an  understanding  and  insight 
above  that  of  his  time,  but  has  represented  him  as  ac- 
commodating himself  to  his  age  and  environment. 

The  last  view,  represented  by  such  a  writer  as  Renan,  * 
has  never  gained  currency.  The  world  has  been  too 
certain  of  Jesus  Christ  as  ' '  the  truth ' '  to  conceive  of 
him  as  even  permitting  a  "  pious  fraud,"  as  Renan 
represents.  Those  who  hold  to  the  second  view  do 
not  sufficiently  recognize  Jesus'  dependence  on  the  Old 
Testament  as  the  foundation  for  his  teachings  ;  as  his 
starting-point.  They  over-emphasize  and  misinterpret 
the  nature  of  Jesus'  opposition  to  certain  Old  Testament 
teachings. 

The  tendency  of  the  Church,  influenced  by  the 
methods  of  using  Scripture  current  with  the  apostolic 
writers,  has  inclined  to  the  first.  It  has  not  sufficiently 
recognized  the  independence  of  Jesus  and  his  elevation 
above  his  age.  It  has  identified  the  method  of  the  dis- 
ciples with  that  of  Jesus.  The  tendency  has  been,  in 
Old  Testament  interpretation,  to  read  Christ  into  the 
Old  Testament,  and  especially  into  the  prophets,  in  a 
very  direct  and  literal  way.     So  in  New  Testament 

'See  Vie  de  Jesus,  chapter  xv.,  page  245^*.  For  example, 
Renan  says,  with  regard  to  Jesus'  acceptance  of  the  title,  Son 
of  David  :  "Le  titre  de  'fils  de  David'  fut  le  premier  qu'il  ac- 
cepta,  probablement  sans  tremper  dans  les  fraudes  innocentes 
par  lesquelles  on  chercha  a  le  lui  assurer.  .  .  .  II  se  laissa 
donnerun  titre  sans  lequel  il  nepouvait  espeVer  aucun  succes." 


Introductory  7 

interpretation,  a  like  tendency  has  been  to  find,  in  the 
events  of  Christ's  life,  a  very  literal  "  fulfilment"  of 
Old  Testament  prophecies,  which  then  become  pre- 
dictions of  the  events. 

To  answer  the  question  as  to  whether  or  not  Jesus 
shared  this  view  more  than  a  mere  casual  reading  of 
the  Gospels  is  necessary.  To  decide  whether  or  not 
the  Evangelists  were  right  in  their  methods  of  inter- 
pretation, we  must  go  beyond  the  interpretation  of  these 
writers.  We  must  find  out  for  ourselves,  so  far  as  we 
can,  just  what  Jesus  actually  said,  just  how  much,  and 
how,  he  himself  used  the  prophets,  and  his  main  pur- 
pose in  using  them.  To  do  this  we  need  to  make  a 
thorough,  critical,  exegetical,  interpretative  study  in 
the  light  of  the  historical  occasion  in  each  case. 

The  Problem 

There  are  two  ways  of  looking  at  prophecy.  One  is 
to  consider  it  as,  primarily,  prediction,  and  secondarily, 
preaching.  Another  way  is  to  reverse  this  order.  The 
conception  of  prophecy  itself  will  determine  the  idea  of 
its  fulfilment.  If  prophecy  is  primarily  the  forecasting 
of  special  concrete  events,  then  its  fulfilment  is  some- 
thing literal  and  detailed.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  proph- 
ecy is  primarily  truth,  then  its  fulfilment  will  mean 
something  more  than  that  of  the  letter. 

Which  of  these  ways  did  Jesus  regard  as  of  supreme 
importance  ?  Was  he  concerned  with  prophecy  as  pre- 
diction ?  Or  was  he  concerned  with  prophecy  as  truth  ? 
Did  he,  first  of  all,  conceive  of  the  prophetic  mission  as 
the  revelation  of  the  thoughts  and  will  of  God  ;  or  was 
his  first  interest  in  it  as  a  detailed  prognostication  of 
things  which  had  relative  moral  insignificance  ?  With 
regard  to  Messianic  Prophecy:   Was  this  to  him  the 


8  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

forecasting  of  a  hope  of  Israel's  future  as  an  ideal  for 
the  race,  which  ideal  was  realized  in  his  Gospel  ?  Or 
was  he  concerned  with  Messianic  Prophecy  as  a  series 
of  definite  descriptions  with  which  he  was  to  correspond 
in  his  earthly  life  ? ■ 

As  we  have  already  suggested,  this  is  not  identical 
with  the  question  —  How  has  the  Church  regarded 
prophecy?  Nor — How  did  the  early  Fathers  regard 
it  ?  Nor — What  did  prophecy  mean  to  the  Evangelists 
and  Apostles  ? 

A  study  of  the  Gospels  shows  us  that  we  have  to  deal 
with  several  independent  sources  in  our  record  of  Jesus' 
sayings.  We  find  that  they  have  not  absolutely  equal 
authority.  Some  are  evidently  more  closely  related 
than  others  to  the  subjects  of  which  they  treat.  They 
are  not  always  in  entire  agreement.  The  writers  were 
moved  by  subjective  considerations.  Hence  the  teach- 
ings of  Jesus  are  cast  in  different  forms  and  are  variously 
interpreted  by  these  writers.  We  shall  be  obliged,  if 
we  are  to  get  at  the  real  sayings  and  teachings  of  Jesus, 
to  go  behind  the  form  to  the  substance  itself.3     And 

1  On  this,  see,  for  varying  views,  Hiihn,  Messianische  Weis- 
sagungen,  i  Teil,  section  5,  page  7 ;  Riehm,  Messianic  Pro- 
phecy, Introduction  ;  and  Briggs,  Messianic  Prophecy,  page  63 
ff.  Delitzsch  is  a  good  representative  of  a  literal  view.  See 
his  commentaries. 

2  In  not  recognizing  the  facts  of  critical  scholarship  we  are 
led  into  serious  errors.  For  example,  a  recent  writer,  speaking 
of  the  passage  Matt,  xv.,  8,  9,  remarks,  in  speaking  of  Jesus, 
"He  forsakes  the  Hebrew  and  agrees  with  the  Septuagint  when 
it  suits  his  meaning,  and  modifies  even  the  version  he  is  follow- 
ing" (Adamson,  The  Mind  of  Christ).  Even  a  superficial 
knowledge  of  the  facts  of  Jesus'  life  ought  to  prevent  one  from 
supposing  that  Jesus  himself  had  anything  to  do  with  such  a 
matter. 


Introductory  9 

we  must,  in  many  cases,  seek  their  meaning  and  appli- 
cation for  ourselves  independently  of  the  interpretation 
of  the  Evangelists  and  editors. 

We  cannot  enter  upon  a  discussion  of  this  kind  with- 
out some  presuppositions.  These  are  based  upon  our 
conclusions  with  regard  to  what  is  known  as  "  the 
Synoptic  Problem."  A  settlement  of  this  great  ques- 
tion is  by  no  means  essential  in  order  that  we  should 
get  at  the  substance  of  Jesus'  teaching.  Inasmuch, 
however,  as  certain  matters  of  detail  depend  on  our 
view  as  to  the  mutual  relationship  existing  between 
the  sources  of  Jesus'  teaching,  we  shall  avoid  needless 
and  distracting  divergences  in  our  later  discussion  by 
suggesting  our  main  points  of  view  at  the  start. 

The  Sources  of  the  Gospels 

It  seems  clear  that  two  documents  are  at  the  basis  of 
the  synoptic  tradition.  One  of  these  documents  (Mark 
or  an  Original  Mark)  narrates  chiefly  the  life  of  Christ. 
The  other  {Logia),  mainly  or  entirely,  his  words,  his 
teachings.  The  former  best  accounts  for  the  likeness 
of  statement  in  the  incidents  narrated  in  the  Gospels. 
The  Logia  or  "  sayings"  accounts  for  the  likeness  of 
expression  and  form  in  Christ's  teachings.  The  second 
Gospel  is  more  individual  and  independent  than  the 
others.  It  is  probably  the  earliest.  The  likeness  in 
form  of  the  sayings  in  Matthew  and  Luke  indicates  the 
dependence  of  both  on  a  Logia.  Mark's  narrative, 
also,  was  evidently  used  by  the  writers  of  the  first  and 
third  Gospels.  The  similarity  of  Matthew  and  Luke 
is  the  result  of  this  combination,  in  each,  of  the  Logia 
with  the  Mark  narrative.  In  Matthew  and  Luke  we 
find  the  material  from  the  Logia  used  by  each  in  his 


io  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

own  way.  In  Matthew  it  is  topically  arranged,  the 
historical  connection  being  secondary.  The  writer  of 
the  third  Gospel  has  evidently  sought  to  give  it  its  his- 
torical connection.  Thus  far,  then,  we  find  the  first  and 
third  Gospels  free  and  independent  in  the  use  of  their 
common  material. 

The  writer  of  the  third  Gospel  evidently  had,  besides 
Mark  and  a  Logia,  an  independent  source.  It  does  not 
seem  probable  that  Luke  used  our  Matthew  or  the  same 
Logia  that  the  writer  of  the  first  Gospel  used.  He  had 
either  a  version  of  that  Logia,  or  another  Logia  inde- 
pendent of  Matthew's.  He  follows  Mark's  narrative 
in  the  main  and  endeavors  to  insert  the  Logia  and  the 
material  from  his  third  source  into  its  historical  con- 
nection. As  to  the  second  Gospel,  it  seems  probable 
that  it  did  not  originally  consist  as  we  have  it.  An 
Original  Mark  has  been  used  as  the  basis  for  our  larger 
Mark. 

These  considerations  must  guide  us,  not  altogether, 
but  to  some  extent,  when  we  are  called  upon  to  decide 
as  to  the  original  form  of  Jesus'  words.  In  some  cases 
we  shall  find  it  necessary  also  to  determine  the  his- 
torical setting,  the  event  with  which  the  saying  was 
connected,  the  hearers  to  whom  it  was  spoken,  in  order 
to  get  its  significance.  In  those  matters  the  Evangelists 
do  not  always  agree. 

The  fourth  Gospel  presents  another,  and  a  quite 
different  problem.  It  seems  probable  that  its  writer 
presupposes  the  Synoptics  and  that  he  had  a  written 
source  in  addition.  The  fourth  Gospel  is  not  chiefly 
an  historical  account.  It  is  concerned  to  give  the 
teachings  of  Jesus  and  teachings  about  Jesus  and  not  a 
simple  narrative  of  events.  In  form,  it  seems  certain 
that  it  does  not  correspond  with  the  mode  of  speech 


Introductory  1 1 

used  by  Jesus.  Its  form  is  that  of  its  writer.  He  has 
to  a  considerable  extent  put  Jesus'  teachings  into  his 
own  words.  He  did  not  quote  Jesus,  he  explained 
him.  His  Gospel  is  a  development  of  Jesus'  teachings, 
and  of  his  person,  into  doctrine.  This  Gospel  contains 
very  few  verbatim  sayings  of  Jesus. 

We  are  led  to  further  considerations.  Were  the 
writers  of  the  Gospels  influenced  by  subjective  ten- 
dencies ?  We  have  seen  that  they  were,  as  far  as  their 
formal  method  of  presenting  the  life  and  teachings  of 
Jesus  is  concerned.  That  is,  some  were  historical, 
others  concerned  with  ethical  teachings,  and  others 
with  doctrine.  Furthermore,  can  we  treat  the  question 
as  to  the  substance  and  meaning  of  Jesus'  words  by 
an  indiscriminate  acceptance  of  what  is  presented  to 
us  ?  If  we  found  that  they  were  in  entire  agreement  as 
to  their  interpretation,  we  might  conclude  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  had  given  to  these  writers  infallibility  in 
thought  and  judgment.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  however, 
we  find  that  while  they  do  present  a  true  picture,  it  is 
not  a  photograph.  They  do  not  always  interpret  or 
present  in  entire  agreement.  Just  as  the  disciples  in 
Jesus'  lifetime  sometimes  misunderstood  him,  so  the 
evangelical  writers  sometimes  give  his  words  a  quite 
different  turning  and  application  from  that  of  Jesus 
himself.  This  is  where  the  main  divergencies  in  the 
Gospels  lie.  These  writers  have  not  falsely  presented 
Jesus'  sayings;  but  they  have  in  some  cases  given  them 
their  own  application.  This  has  occasionally  led  to 
change  in  expression.  They  had  not  the  insight  of 
Jesus  himself,  and  they  were,  in  contrast  to  him,  limited 
considerably  by  their  age  and  its  influences. 

One  of  these  limitations  lay  in  the  requirement  that  a 
true  Messiah  must  be  proved  such,  from  Old  Testament 


12  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

prophecies  conceived  of  as  predicting  and  describing 
him.  The  current  method  of  proof  was  literal  and 
mechanical.  The  writers  of  our  Gospels  were  greatly 
influenced  by  this  age-requirement  in  their  interpreta- 
tion of  the  events  of  the  Master's  life  and  of  his  teach- 
ings. To  satisfy  Jewish  minds,  their  task  was  to 
establish  his  Messiahship  by  showing  this  detailed  ful- 
filment of  prophetic  description.  This  being  the  con- 
ception of  these  writers,  it  was  not  unnatural  that  they 
should  cast  the  sayings  of  Jesus  in  some  such  mould 
and  give  them  such  an  interpretation  and  application. 
For  example,  when  Jesus,  in  answer  to  the  demand  for  a 
"sign,"  replied  that  there  should  be  no  sign  given,  but 
11  the  sign  of  the  prophet  Jonah  "  (Matt,  xii.,  39),  a  re- 
corder of  the  incident  saw  in  this  a  reference  to  the 
resurrection  (verse  40),  whereas  this  is  not  Jesus' 
meaning  at  all.  In  this  matter  we  are  not  altogether 
concerned  as  to  whether  the  Evangelists  were  right  or 
wrong  in  their  conception  regarding  these  correspond- 
ences of  prophecy  to  Jesus'  life  and  work.  Our  ques- 
tion is — Was  this  the  conception  of  Jesus?  For  our 
answer  we  must  go  back  as  far  as  we  can  to  the  actual 
words  of  Jesus  himself,  to  his  own  use  of  prophecy. 
We  must  not  interpret  Jesus  by  the  Evangelists.  The 
reverse  must  be  our  process.  The  disciple  is  not  above 
his  master  nor  the  servant  greater  than  his  lord.  And 
we  must  not  accord  to  the  later  Church  any  more 
authority  as  an  interpreter  that  we  allow  the  earlier 
Church  and  the  Evangelists.  Our  investigation  must 
be  made  by  going  back  to  Jesus'  words  and  not  by 
resting  merely  on  a  later,  albeit  widely  accepted,  mean- 
ing given  to  his  words.  The  interpretation  must  de- 
termine and,  if  necessary,  transform  the  doctrine,  and 
doctrine  must  not  be  allowed  to  mould  interpretation. 


Introductory  13 

Our  main  task  will  be  : 

1.  To  set  forth  Jesus'  use  of  prophecy. 

2.  To  indicate  his  attitude  towards  it  and  the  standard 
by  which  he  valued  it. 

3.  In  the  light  of  this,  to  show  what  its  fulfilment 
signified  with  him,  and  how  he  regarded  himself  as 
the  ' '  fufiller ' '  of  prophecy.  Among  the  ' '  prophetic ' ' 
books  we  shall  include  the  Psalms.  They  are  so  in- 
cluded when  the  Old  Testament  is  spoken  of  as  "  Law 
and  Prophets  "  and  they  have  the  genuinely  prophetic 
character  when  we  use  that  term  in  its  truest  sense. 


CHAPTER  II 

QUOTATIONS    FROM    TH£   PROPHETIC    BOOKS   BY  JESUS 

WE  shall  first  consider  the  direct  quotations  of 
Jesus  from  the  Prophetic  Books,  including  the 
Book  of  Psalms,  and  must  refer  to  the  Massoretic  Text 
and  to  the  Septuagint,  in  order  to  ascertain  and  to  indi- 
cate the  probable  source  of  the  quotations  as  we  have 
them.  Then  the  texts  of  the  Gospels  will  be  com- 
pared to  enable  us  to  learn  the  original  form  and  ex- 
pression. Wherever  necessary,  in  order  to  determine 
the  purpose  of  the  quotation,  its  meaning  and  applica- 
tion, the  historical  occasion  will  be  considered.  Exegesis 
and  criticism  will  be  entered  into  only  so  far  as  needful 
to  these  ends.  The  significance  of  the  passage  in  its 
Old  Testament  connection  will  be  set  forth,  and  then 
the  use  made  of  it  by  Jesus,  and  his  purpose  in  citing 
it.  In  some  cases  passages  will  be  treated  which,  while 
not  direct  quotations,  are  evidently  consciously  adopted 
from  an  Old  Testament  writing.  The  mere  casual  use 
of  prophetic  language  and  imagery,  where  the  Old 
Testament  connection  is  evidently  of  no  special  signifi- 
cance, will  be  reserved  for  consideration  in  a  separate 
chapter.  The  passages  will  be  discussed  in  the  follow- 
ing order: 

i .  Those  found  in  the  three  Synoptists. 

2.  In  Mark  and  Matthew. 
14 


Quotations  by  Jesus  15 

3.  In  Mark  alone. 

4.  In  Matthew  and  I^uke. 

5.  In  Matthew  alone. 

6.  In  Iyuke. 

7.  In  John. 

This  arrangement  is  adopted,  not  because  it  neces- 
sarily prescribes  any  order  as  to  the  genuineness  of  the 
passages,  but  largely  for  convenience.  Other  versions 
than  the  Hebrew  and  the  Septuagiut  will  be  given 
only  where  a  comparison  with  such  versions  throws 
any  light  on  the  discussion. 

I.— QUOTATIONS  SUPPORTED  BY  MARK,   MATTHEW,    AND  I^UKE; 

The  Mustard  Seed 

Mark  iv.,  32  ;  Matthew  xiii.,  32 ;  Luke  xiii.,  19 :  from  Daniel 
iv.,  9  (12).  (Compare  also  Ezekiel  xvii.,  23,  and  Psalm  civ., 
12,  17.) 

Aramaic — Daniel  iv.,  9:  "And  in  its  branches  lodged  the 
birds  of  heaven." 

Septuagint — "And  in  it  the  birds  of  heaven  built  their 
nests." 

Theodotion — "And  in  its  branches  the  birds  of  heaven 
dwelt." 

Mark  iv.,  32 — ".  .  .  and  putteth  forth  great  branches  so 
that  the  birds  of  heaven  can  lodge  under  its  shelter." 

Matthew  xiii.,  32 — " ...  so  that  the  birds  of  heaven 
come  and  lodge  in  its  branches." 

Luke  xiii.,  19—".  .  .  and  the  birds  of  heaven  lodged  in 
its  branches." 

The  Parable 

Mark  iv.,  30-32 — "  And  he  said,  How  shall  we  liken  the  King- 
dom of  God  ?  or  in  what  parable  shall  we  set  it  forth  ?  It  is 
like  a  grain  of  mustard  seed,  which,  when  it  is  sown  upon  the 
earth,  though  it  be  less  than  all  the  seeds  that  are  upon  the 


1 6  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

earth,  yet  when  it  is  sown,  groweth  up,  and  becometh  greater 
than  all  the  herbs,  and  putteth  out  great  branches  ;  so  that  the 
birds  of  heaven  can  lodge  under  the  shadow  thereof." 

Matthew  xiii.,  31,  32 — "Another  parable  set  he  before  them, 
saying,  The  Kingdom  of  Heaven  is  like  unto  a  grain  of  mustard 
seed,  which  a  man  took,  and  sowed  in  his  field :  which  indeed 
is  less  than  all  seeds  ;  but  when  it  is  grown,  it  is  greater  than 
the  herbs,  and  becometh  a  tree,  so  that  the  birds  of  the  heaven 
come  and  lodge  in  the  branches  thereof." 

Luke  xiii.,  18,  19 — "He  said,  therefore,  Unto  what  is  the 
Kingdom  of  God  like?  And  whereunto  shall  I  liken  it?  It  is 
like  unto  a  grain  of  mustard  seed,  which  a  man  took,  and  cast 
into  his  own  garden ;  and  it  grew,  and  became  a  tree  ;  and  the 
birds  of  heaven  lodged  in  the  branches  thereof." 

The  uncertain  state  of  the  Septuagint  text  of  Daniel 
makes  it  difficult  to  trace  the  source  of  this  quotation. 
Mark's  "  shelter  "  may  relate  to  the  similar  word  used 
in  the  previous  clause  in  the  Septuagint  of  Daniel 
iv.,  9.  Or  it  may  be  a  reminiscence  of  Ezekiel  xvii.,  23, 
where  the  same  phrase  is  used. 

There  is  evidently  some  difference  of  conception  by 
the  Evangelists  with  regard  to  the  closing  words  of  the 
parable.  Matthew  and  L,uke  say  that  it  becomes  a 
tree.  Mark  merely  says  that  it  becomes  greater  than 
all  herbs.  Matthew  and  L,uke  thus  come  nearer  to  the 
idea  in  the  quotation  itself,  while  Mark  accommodates 
the  quotation  to  the  terms  of  the  parable.  Jesus  would 
be  more  likely,  where  he  was  simply  using  an  Old 
Testament  phrase,  without  any  direct  connection  of 
thought,  to  sacrifice  the  wording  of  the  citation  than 
the  main  idea  of  the  parable. 

Iyuke  omits  the  reference  to  the  smallness  of  the  seed 
and  mentions  only  the  greatness  of  the  tree.  As  to  the 
setting,  Matthew  and  Mark  agree,  and  evidently  their 
source  is  identical.  This,  however,  is  probably  not  the 
historical  setting;  and  Luke's  is  hardly  more  satis- 


Quotations  by  Jesus  1 7 

factory.  Luke,  in  his  emphasis  of  the  largeness  of  the 
end  to  the  exclusion  of  the  smallness  of  the  beginning, 
is  probably  influenced  by  his  connection.  Just  preced- 
ing, in  Luke,  Jesus'  triumph  over  his  opponents  is  set 
forth.  This  suggested  to  Luke  the  idea  of  the  ultimate 
victory  and  growth  of  Christ's  cause  and  kingdom. 
This  would  suit  the  Gentile  Gospel  with  its  conception 
of  Christianity  as  a  world  religion.  In  fact,  in  some 
codices  and  in  the  Textus  Receptus  we  have  ' '  great 
tree."  This  reading,  while  rejected  by  the  best  texts, 
indicates  Luke's  exaggeration  at  this  point,  which  is 
here  carried  a  step  farther. 

Now  when  we  come  to  consider  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
here,  we  see  that  his  concern  is  not  just  this,  but  rather 
to  forecast  developi7ient  in  spite  of  the  smallness  of  the 
beginning,  than  to  prophesy  future  greatness.  Losing 
sight  of  this,  the  third  Evangelist,  placing  the  parable 
in  connection  (verse  17)  with  a  triumph  of  Jesus,  and 
living  in  the  time  of  its  greatness,  makes  this  a  prophecy 
of  the  greatness  of  Jesus'  coming  kingdom. 

As  to  Jesus'  use  of  prophecy  here — this  is  not  a  direct 
reference,  nor  should  we  treat  it  as  a  quotation  were  it 
not  that  some  commentators  have  treated  the  passage 
as  likening  the  coming  kingdom  in  its  growth  to  a 
great  cedar  of  Lebanon  (Ps.  civ.,  16),  or  to  the  great 
tree  in  Nebuchadnezzar's  dream.  Such  interpretations 
are  forced.  They  fail  to  distinguish  between  allegory 
and  parable.  Jesus  refers  primarily  to  the  smallness 
of  the  beginning  as  being  no  cause  for  discouragement. 
He  merely  borrows  Old  Testament  figures  of  speech, 
by  way  of  illustration.1 

1  For  a  discussion  of  the  parable  see  especially  Jiilicher,  Die 
Gleichnisreden  (Zweiter  Teil,  vom  Senf korn  utid  Sauerteig,  sec. 
48,  p.  569). 


i8 


Jesus  and  the  Prophets 


The  Fate  of  Prophetic  Preaching 

Mark  iv.,  12  ;  Matthew  xiii.,  13-15  ;  Luke  viii.,  10  ;  John  ix., 
39  :  from  Isaiah  vi.,  9,  10.  (Compare  also  Mark  viii.,  18  ;  John 
xii.,  40.) 

Hebrew — Isaiah  vi.,  9,  10 :  "  And  he  said,  Go  and  say  to  this 
people,  Hear  indeed,  but  understand  not ;  and  see  indeed,  but 
know  not :  make  fat  the  heart  of  this  people,  and  its  ears  make 
heavy,  and  its  eyes  smear,  lest  it  see  with  its  eyes,  and  hear 
with  its  ears,  and  its  heart  understand,  and  it  turn  again  and  be 
healed." 

Septuagint — "  And  he  said,  Go  and  say  to  this  people,  Hear- 
ing ye  shall  hear,  but  shall  not  at  all  understand ;  and  seeing 
ye  shall  see  and  shall  not  at  all  perceive ;  for  this  people's 
heart  has  become  thick,  and  they  have  heard  heavily  with  their 
ears,  and  have  closed  their  eyes  ;  lest  perchance  they  should 
see  with  the  eyes,  and  hear  with  the  ears,  and  understand  with 
the  heart,  and  turn  back  and  I  heal  them." 


Matthew  xiii.,  10-17 

10  And  the  disciples  came, 
and  said  unto  him,  Why 
speakest  thou  unto  them 

11  in  parables?  And  he  an- 
swered and  said  unto  them, 
Unto  you  it  is  given  to 
know  the  mysteries  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  but  to 

12  them  it  is  not  given.  For 
whosoever  hath,  to  him 
shall  be  given,  and  he  shall 
have  abundance :  but  who- 
soever hath  not,  from  him 
shall  be  taken  away  even 

13  that  which  he  hath.  There- 
fore speak  I  to  them  in 
parables ;  because  seeing 
they  see  not,  and  hear- 
ing they  hear  not,  neither 

14  do  they  understand.     And 


Mark  iv.,  10-13 

10  And  when  he  was  alone, 
they  that  were  about  him 
with  the  twelve  asked  of 

11  him  the  parables.  And  he 
said  unto  them,  Unto  you 
is  given  the  mystery  of  the 
kingdom  of  God :  but  unto 
them  that  are  without,  all 
things  are  done  in  parables: 

12  that  seeing  they  may  see, 
and  not  perceive ;  and 
hearing  they  may  hear, 
and  not  understand  ;  lest 
haply  they  should  turn 
again,  and  it  should  be  for- 

13  given  them.  And  he  saith 
unto  them,  Know  ye  not 
this  parable?  and  how 
shall  ye  know  all  the 
parables  ? 


Quotations  by  Jesus 


19 


(Matthew—  Continued) 
unto  them  is  fulfilled  the 
prophecy  of  Isaiah,  which 
saith, 
By  hearing  ye  shall  hear, 

and  shall  in  no  wise 

understand ; 
And  seeing  ye  shall  see, 

and  shall  in  no  wise 

perceive: 

15  For  this  people's  heart 

is  waxed  gross, 
And  their  ears  are  dull 

of  hearing, 
And  their  eyes  they  have 

closed ; 
Lest  haply  they  should 

perceive    with     their 

eyes, 
And  hear  with  their  ears, 
And    understand     with 

their  heart, 
And  should  turn  again, 
And  I  should  heal  them. 

16  But  blessed  are  your  eyes, 
for    they    see ;    and    your 

17  ears,  for  they  hear.  For 
verily  I  say  unto  you,  that 
many  prophets  and  right- 
eous men  desired  to  see  the 
things  which  ye  see,  and 
saw  them  not ;  and  to  hear 
the  things  which  ye  hear, 
and  heard  them  not. 


Luke  viii.,  9,  10 
9  And  his  disciples  asked 
him  what  this  parable  might 
10  be.  And  he  said,  Unto  you 
it  is  given  to  know  the 
mysteries  of  the  kingdom 
of  God  :  but  to  the  rest  in 
parables  ;  that  seeing  they 
may  not  see,  and  hearing 
they  may  not  understand. 


In  the  passage  Mark  viii.,  17,  18,  Jesus  applies 
the  words  to  the  disciples,  citing  freely.  In  John 
ix.,  39,  the  same  idea  is  expressed  in  a  different  con- 
nection.   It  is  probably  a  reminiscence  from  the  Synop- 


20  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

tists.      In  John  xii.,  37-41,   the  writer  of  the  fourth 
Gospel  himself  cites  the  passage  by  way  of  comment. 

We  have  here  a  considerably  longer  form  in  Matthew 
and  a  shorter  in  Luke,  than  that  of  Mark.  Matthew, 
in  this  connection,  brings  together  seven  parables.  The 
compiler  follows  his  frequent  custom  of  massing  matter 
of  the  same  kind.  His  evident  purpose  in  doing  so  in 
this  instance  is  effectually  to  impress  the  significance  of 
this  method  of  Christ's  teaching  as  indicated  by  the 
purpose  set  forth  in  the  quotation  from  Isaiah.  As  in . 
other  cases  he  adds  the  full  quotation  (Matt,  xiii., 
14,  15).  It  is  altogether  probable  that  this  is  an  addi- 
tion by  the  writer  of  the  first  Gospel.  Mark  and  Luke 
(also  John  ix.,  39)  represent  Jesus  as  merely  giving  the 
substance  in  a  free  adoption,  as  in  Matthew  xiii.,  13. 
In  Mark  viii.,  17,  18,  where  Jesus  uses  the  same  words 
in  application  to  the  disciples,  they  are  rendered  much 
the  same  as  in  Matthew  xiii.,  13.  Matthew  shows  his 
interest  to  relate  the  matter  definitely  to  prophecy  as  he 
does  similarly  later  on,  in  xiii.,  34,  35.  John  (xii.,  37- 
41)  seems  to  follow  Matthew,  influenced  by  the  same 
purpose.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  Matthew  alone,  of  the 
Synoptists,  represents  it  as  "fulfilment."  Mark  and 
Luke  merely  represent  Jesus  as  using  the  substance  of 
the  quotation  in  application  to  his  hearers.  Mark  is 
evidently  the  most  original. 

In  the  whole  matter  there  is  a  difference  of  under- 
standing among  the  Evangelists.  Matthew  makes  the 
question  of  the  disciples  refer  distinctly  ("  therefore") 
to  the  method  of  teaching.  Luke  refers  it  to  the  mean- 
ing of  the  parables.  In  Mark  the  sense  is  ambiguous; 
they  ask  him  concerning  the  parables.  All  three,  how- 
ever, represent  Christ  as  teaching  that  he  adopted  this 
method  to  hide  truth  from  unspiritual  minds.     They 


Quotations  by  Jesus  21 

seem  to  regard  it  as  intention,  and  not  merely  as  result. 
Iyuke  and  Mark  represent  Jesus  as  saying  that  lie 
speaks  in  parables  ' '  in  order  that ' '  they  may  not  un- 
derstand. Matthew  endeavors  to  soften  this  and  substi- 
tute ' 'therefore,"  meaning  "  I  speak  this  way — because 
-~they  see  not,  etc."  But  this  does  not  altogether  con- 
sist with  verse  11 — "  Unto  you  it  is  given  to  know  the 
mysteries  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven,  but  to  them  it  is 
not give?i."  The  context  shows  that  the  same  idea  is 
present  in  all  three  accounts  and  it  is  not  changed  by 
Matthew's  softening  of  "in  order  that  "  to  "therefore." 
The  fact  that  the  difference  between  the  words  of  Mark 
and  I^uke  and  the  changed  expression  of  Matthew  cor- 
responds to  a  similar  difference  between  the  Hebrew 
and  the  Septuagint '  does  not  count  for  anything,  inas- 
much as  it  is  evident  that  the  Septuagint  is  the  source 
of  the  quotation  in  all  three  accounts,  and  Matthew,  in 
his  addition,  quotes  it  identically. 

We  shall  arrive  at  an  explanation  of  Jesus'  use  of  the 
prophecy  referred  to  by  a  comparison  of  the  passage  in 
Isaiah  and  by  a  consideration  of  the  Parable  of  the 
Sower,  which  itself  is  an  explanation  of  the  use  of  the 
prophecy.  Jesus  explains  what  he  means  by  this  "hard 
saying ' '  in  his  interpretation  of  the  parable. 

The  Prophet's  Meaning  {Isaiah  vi.,  9ff.) 

Here  the  prophet  is  describing  his  commission  from 
God.  From  its  very  nature  we  feel  the  necessity  ot 
placing  the  description  in  Isaiah's  later  life,  written  in 
the  light  of  actual  experience.  The  ideal  character 
of  this  chapter,  written  some  years  after  the  events  it 

1  In  the  Hebrew  God  sends  His  prophet  to  harden  them.  In 
the  Septuagint  the  hardening  is  not  purpose  but  result. 


22  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

relates,  is  generally  conceded.  It  is  a  picture  of  Isaiah's 
call  and  commission  in  the  light  of  the  results  of  his 
work.  We  cannot  suppose  that  this  conviction  came 
to  Isaiah  at  the  opening  of  his  work  with  all  the  aw- 
fulness  with  which  it  is  here  described.  It  was  the 
conclusion  of  a  long  process  of  disillusionment  and 
disappointment. 

Seen  thus,  in  the  view  of  actual  experience,  the  pro- 
phet's words  become  clear.  The  form  of  command 
"  Go  ye  "  is  for  emphasis  and  effect.  This  is  frequently 
the  prophetic  way  of  stating  a  great  principle  with 
great  emphasis.  It  accords  with  the  Hebrew  concep- 
tion that  all  result  has  Jahwe  as  its  cause.  {See  Amos 
iii.,  6.)  Result  is  identical  with  the  divine  purpose. 
In  our  passage  Isaiah  produces  it,  acting  for  God. 
Thus  the  prophet  is  stating  here  the  actual  effect  of  his 
work  and  preaching.  It  is  the  ironical  utterance  of 
bitter  disappointment. 

Jesus'  Use  of  the  PropheP s  Words 

This  explains  Jesus'  use  of  the  prophet's  words. 
Similarity  of  situation  and  similarity  of  teaching  sug- 
gest to  him  the  language  and  expression,  coming  nat- 
urally and  readily  because  of  his  familiarity  with  the 
Old  Testament.  Jesus  is  at  a  sufficiently  advanced 
stage  of  his  ministry  to  feel  the  keen  disappointment  of 
rejection  and  misunderstanding.  He  is  at  the  height 
of  his  Galilean  ministry,  and  with  his  keen  insight  and 
foresight  he  sees  that  hour  just  ahead,  referred  to  in 
John  vi.,  66,  when  this  Galilean  ministry  ended  and 
from  that  time  "  many  of  his  disciples  went  back  and 
walked  no  more  with  him."  He  sees  in  the  crowd 
around  him  the  same  hard  unspiritualness  depicted  by 


Quotations  by  Jesus  23 

the  prophet,  with  whose  experience  he  was  so  familiar. 
He  refers  to  the  prophecy  as  a  great  principle  or  truth 
repeating  itself  in  history.  He  realizes  this  darkening 
and  hardening  of  the  spiritual  faculties  as  an  inevitable 
result  of  his  teaching.  His  meaning  is,  that  truth  such 
as  his  has  not  only  the  effect  of  saving  and  develop- 
ing, but  that  it  has  also  the  effect  of  judgment  and 
condemnation.  To  him  that  hath  (that  receiveth  and 
useth)  more  is  given.  From  him  that  hath  not  (that 
receiveth  and  useth  not)  is  taken  away  that  which  he 
hath. 

Again:  "  If  I  had  not  come  and  spoken  unto  them, 
they  had  not  had  sin:  but  now  they  have  no  excuse  for 
their  sin.  .  .  .  If  I  had  not  done  among  them  the 
works  which  none  other  did,  they  had  not  had  sin :  but 
now  they  have  both  seen  and  hated  both  me  and  my 
Father"  (John  xv.,  22-24). 

These  passages  state  the  condemning  power  of  Jesus' 
words  and  works.  The  same  truth  held  good  with 
Jesus  as  with  Isaiah.  Human  nature  used  God's  gifts 
for  the  opposite  purposes  for  which  they  were  given. 
11  The  evil  heart  can  assimilate  good  to  itself  and  con- 
vert it  to  its  nature."  Every  successive  preacher  from 
Isaiah  to  Christ,  and  down  to  to-day,  has  experienced 
this  same  disappointment.  Paul  makes  the  same  use 
of  the  passage  in  Isaiah  that  Jesus  does,  and  under  like 
circumstances  (Acts  xxviii.,  26,  27),  applying  it  to  the 
passing  of  the  Gospel  over  to  the  Gentiles.  {See  also 
Romans  xi.,  8,  and  2  Corinthians  iii.,  14.) 

That  this  is  Christ's  application  is  apparent  from  the 
parable  in  question  and  the  explanation  of  it.  The 
parable  shows  the  cause  and  working  of  the  principle 
embodied  in  the  quotation.  In  this  Parable  of  the 
Sower  Jesus  elaborates  the  idea,  and  is  represented  as 


24  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

dividing  the  darkened  and  hardened  into  two  classes, . 
the  spiritually  dull,  who  see  not  at  all;  and  those  with 
darkened  eyes  who  see  but  do  not  understand.  He 
then  sets  over  against  these  two  classes  a  third  who  do 
hear  and  see.  The  parable  itself  forms  a  prelude  to 
the  discourse  in  which,  through  the  prophetic  language, 
Jesus  warns  the  disciples  against  glowing  appearances 
which  would  blind  them  to  the  weaknesses  of  humanity. 
Christ's  parabolic  teaching  had  especially  done  this 
hardening,  because  his  parables  required  the  use  of 
spiritual  insight.  While  they  led  on  those  who  saw 
into  them,  they  darkened  those  who  did  not.  It  was  a 
fundamental  conception  of  Jesus  that  men  were  not  first 
to  be  convinced  of  his  Messiahship  and  thus  to  become 
his  disciples.  The  reverse  must  be  the  process.  Re- 
ceptiveness  was  the  supreme   requisite  {see  John   x., 

25  ff.).     Thus  he  did  withhold  himself,  in  this  sense, 
from  those  who  did  not  become  his  disciples. 

It  does  not  seem  as  though  the  Evangelists  saw 
Jesus'  application  of  the  prophecy  in  just  this  way. 
They  express  the  hardening  as  the  direct  intention  of 
the  teaching.  In  this  they  are  influenced  by  their  in- 
terest in  a  literal  fulfilment  of  prophecy.  {See  John 
xii.,  37-41.)  This  was  not  Christ's  concern.  He 
uses  the  prophetic  words  for  the  setting  forth  of  a  great 
truth. 

In  Mark  viii.,  18  (compare  Mark  vii.,  18,  Matthew 
xv.,  16),  Christ  refers  to  this  when  he  asks,  "Are  ye 
also  as  blind  as  the  throng  outside."  In  John  ix.,  39, 
he  is  represented  as  using  the  same  passage  from  Isaiah 
in  a  similar  way  as  in  the  passage  we  are  considering. 
In  John  xii.,  39-41,  the  writer  of  the  fourth  Gospel  ex- 
plains the  hearers'  unbelief  in  Jesus'  signs  as  a  literal 
fulfilment  of  the  prophecy,  adding  (verse  41),  "  These 


Quotations  by  Jesus  25 

things  said  Isaiah,  because  he  saw  his  glory:  and  he 
spake  of  him  y  l 

We  find  illustrated  here  that  tendency  of  the  Gospel 
writers  to  a  literalization  of  the  Old  Testament  pas- 
sages which  marks  and  mars  their  interpretation  of 
Christ's  words.  The  writers  of  the  first  and  fourth 
Gospels  are  misled  by  their  effort  to  find  in  this  a  *  'ful- 
filment "  of  an  Old  Testament  prediction.  Jesus  cares 
nothing  for  the  matter  in  this  sense.  He  uses  the  pro- 
phet's words  to  state  a  truth  and  not  at  all  to  verify  a 
prediction.  If  the  reader  will  carefully  compare  Christ's 
use  of  these  words  with  the  use  of  them  by  the  Evange- 
list in  John  xii.,  39-41,  he  will  see  the  world-wide  dif- 
ference between  Jesus  and  his  interpreters.  It  is  the 
difference  between  letter  and  spirit,  between  minute 
prediction  and  universal  truth. 

Paul  (Acts  xxviii.,  25  ff.)  uses  this  passage  in  the 
same  way.  Quoting  the  passage  he  says,  "  Well  spake 
the  Holy  Ghost  through  Isaiah  unto  your  fathers ." 
Then  he  adds:  "  Be  it  known  therefore  to  you  that  this 
salvation  of  God  is  sent  unto  the  Gentiles;  they  also 
will  hear."  He  applies  the  words  to  his  hearers  in 
just  the  way  Jesus  had  done. 

At  the  Temple  Cleansing 

Mark  xi.,  17 ;  Matthew  xxi.,  13,  14  ;  Luke  xix.,  46  :  from 
Isaiah  lvi.,  7,  and  Jeremiah  vii.,  11.  (Compare  John  ii.,  14  ff. 
and  Jeremiah  xxxii.,  34.) 

Hebrew — Isaiah  lvi.,  7:  "For  my  house  a  house  of  prayer 
shall  be  called  for  all  the  nations." 

1  On  Jesus'  teaching  regarding  self-exclusion,  the  reader  is 
referred  to  Wendt's  Teaching  of  Jesusy  vol.  i.,  page  109,  note  ; 
and  to  vol.  ii.,  page  81  ff.  Also  to  Weiss's  Biblical  Theology 
of  the  New  Testament,  vol.  i.,  page  130^. 


26  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

Jeremiah  vii.,  n  :  "Has  this  house,  in  which  my  name  is 
called,  become  in  your  eyes  a  den  of  robbers  ?  " 

Septuagint  —  Isaiah  lvi.,  7:  "For  my  house  a  house  of 
prayer  shall  be  called  for  all  the  nations." 

Jeremiah  vii.,  11 — "Has  this — my  house — there  where  my 
name  was  called,  become  in  your  eyes  a  den  of  robbers?  " 

Mark  xi.,  17— "  And  he  said  to  them  :  Is  it  not  written,  that, 
My  house  a  house  of  prayer  shall  be  called  for  all  nations  ?  but 
ye  have  made  it  a  den  of  robbers." 

Matthew  xxi.,  13,  14 — "And  he  saith  to  them  :  It  is  written 
— My  house  a  house  of  prayer  shall  be  called,  but  ye  make  it  a 
den  of  robbers." 

Luke  xix.,  46 — " .  .  .  saying  to  them  :  It  is  written — And 
my  house  shall  be  a  house  of  prayer, — but  ye  have  made  it  a 
den  of  robbers." 

These  citations  evidently  follow  the  Septuagint. 
Abridgments  and  changes  are  made,  which  are  neces- 
sary in  order  to  give  the  quotation  from  Jeremiah  the 
form  of  a  direct  charge  against  those  to  whom  Jesus 
speaks.  Mark  alone  repeats  "  for  all  nations."  This 
may  have  been  added  later  in  order  to  make  the  quota- 
tion more  nearly  identical  with  the  Isaiah  passage.  Or 
Matthew  and  L,uke  may  have  omitted  it.  It  seems 
more  probable  that  it  is  a  later  addition.  While  Mat- 
thew might  not  have  any  bias  which  would  lead  him  to 
insert  a  Gentile  phrase,  he  would  have  no  reason  for 
omitting  one.  Moreover,  the  tendency  of  the  first 
Gospel  is  towards  completeness  in  Old  Testament  quo- 
tations. L,uke,  in  any  case,  would  not  omit  a  Gentile 
passage.  The  writer  of  Mark,  however,  writing  or  pre- 
paring a  Gospel  for  Gentile  readers,  and  remembering 
the  original  passage,  may  well  have  added  it  for  com- 
pleteness. The  original  form  then  is  probably  that  of 
Matthew  and  I^uke.  There  are  several  changes  of  con- 
struction in  the  rendering  of  the  Jeremiah  passage.    For 


Quotations  by  Jesus  27 

an  explanation  of  this  we  are  not  to  look  to  any  differ- 
ent Septuagint  rendering.  It  is  sufficiently  explained 
by  the  exigencies  of  the  occasion.  Jesus  so  puts  it  as 
to  make  a  distinct  charge  against  the  defilers  of  the 
temple.  The  freedom  of  citation  on  the  part  of  the 
Evangelists  is  evidenced  by  the  different  renderings  of 
words.  Luke,  in  accordance  with  his  frequent  custom, 
abridges  the  Isaiah  passage.1  In  the  parallel  account 
in  the  fourth  Gospel  (John  ii.,  14  ff.)y  Jesus  is  repre- 
sented as  merely  saying,  "  make  not  my  father's  house 
a  house  of  merchandise,"  referring  perhaps  to  Zecha- 
riah  xiv.,  21,  rather  than  to  the  passages  alluded  to  by 
the  Synoptists. 

Jesus  appears  in  this  incident  in  his  prophetic  ca- 
pacity, a  reformer  of  religious  abuses.  This  act  of 
cleansing  the  temple  is  an  act  in  accord  with  genuine 
prophetic  symbolism.  In  justification  of  his  action  he 
uses,  on  his  opponents,  their  own  weapon,  the  Scrip- 
ture, "  It  is  written."  Here  again  we  have  similarity 
of  situation  and  similarity  of  teaching  suggesting  from 
the  Old  Testament  life  and  thought  in  which  Jesus 
moved,  similarity  of  language.     While  the  situation 

1  For  other  examples  of  composite  quotations  in  the  New 
Testament  compare  the  following  : 

Luke  i.,  17,  from  Malachi  iii.,  1,  iv.,  5,  6. 

Acts  i.,  20,  "  Psalms  lxix.,  25,  and  cix.,  8. 

Romans  ix.,  25,  26,  "  Hosea  ii.,  23,  i.,  10. 

"        ix.,  33,  x.,  11,      "  Isaiah  xxviii.,  16,  viii.,  14. 

"        xi.,  8,  "  "      xxix.,  10,  Deuteronomy 

xxix.,  4. 

"        xi.,  26,  27,  "  "      lix.,  20,  21,  xxvii.,  9. 

2  Corinthians  vi.,  16,         "  I,eviticusxxvi.,  11,  12,  Ezekiel 

xxxvii.,  27. 
Galatians  iii.,  8,  "        Genesis  xii.,  3,  xviii.,  18. 

This  composite  quotation  was  a  literary  custom  of  the  time. 


28  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

and  the  teaching  are  not  literally  identical,  they  are 
sufficiently  so  in  spirit  and  general  purpose  to  suggest 
the  language  employed. 

In  Isaiah  the  stress  point  of  the  teaching  is  that 
the  temple  is  a  house  of  prayer  "for  all  nations." 
Isaiah  lvi.,  6-7:  "And  the  foreigners  who  have 
joined  themselves  to  Jehovah,  to  serve  him,  and  to 
love  the  name  of  Jehovah,  that  they  may  be  ser- 
vants to  him,  whoever  keeps  the  Sabbath  not  to 
desecrate  it,  and  those  who  hold  fast  to  my  covenant, 
— I  bring  them  to  my  holy  mountain,  and  make  them 
to  rejoice  in  my  house  of  prayer:  their  whole-offerings 
and  their  slain-offerings  are  well-pleasing  upon  mine 
altar;  for  my  house  a  house  of  prayer  shall  be  called 
for  all  the  nations. ' '  The  prophet  here  marks  an  ad- 
vance in  the  conception  of  the  temple.  It  is  more  than 
a  place  of  sacrifice;  it  is  a  house  of  prayer.  Here  also 
appears  the  prophetic  universalism.  It  is  for  all  nations. 

In  Jeremiah  vii.,  11,  the  prophet  is  denouncing  the 
Jewish  trust  in  the  temple  as  superstitious  and  false  in 
the  light  of  an  unethical  conception  and  character 
which  allowed,  side  by  side  with  temple-worship,  par- 
ticipation in  moral  evil.  Standing  in  the  way  of  the 
throng  going  up  to  the  service  of  the  temple,  he  cries 
to  them  that  in  the  view  of  their  shameless  oppres- 
sion, bloodshedding,  idolatry,  lying,  stealing,  adultery, 
false-swearing,  and  all  their  other  abominations,  Jahwe 
says  ' '  you  make  this  house,  where  my  name  is  called,  a 
den  of  robbers."  The  prophet  then  goes  on  to  predict 
their  rejection  by  Jahwe  and  the  destruction  of  the 
temple  which  they  have  profaned  and  yet  in  which 
they  trust. 

It  is  to  be  noticed  that  in  neither  quotation  is  Jesus' 
application  identical.     The  points  of  emphasis  are  dif- 


Quotations  by  Jesus  29 

ferent  in  each  case  from  those  of  the  prophets.  In 
Isaiah,  the  emphasis  is  on  the  temple  as  a  universal 
house  of  prayer.  In  Jeremiah,  the  stress  point  is  not 
misuse  of  the  temple,  but  moral  character  in  general. 
But,  in  a  general  way,  Jesus  finds  the  prophetic  words 
applicable  to  those  before  him.  "  As  Isaiah  said,  the 
temple  is  for  a  house  of  prayer;  but  to  what  uses  have 
you  perverted  it?  As  said  the  other  great  prophet 
whom  you  profess  to  honor,  to  the  Jews  of  his  time,  so 
I  say  to  you;  you  make  it  a  den  of  robbers."  The  cir- 
cumstances were  practically  the  same  as  with  Jeremiah. 
A  similar  superstitious  reverence  for  the  temple-build- 
ing existed,  and  the  same  "  robbery  "  existed  side  by 
side  with  it. 

Over  against  the  proper  use  of  the  temple  as  given 
by  Isaiah,  Jesus  sets  the  perverted  use  as  pictured  by 
Jeremiah.  He  selects  the  first  of  these  quotations  as 
the  norm  of  judgment  for  the  temple  service  as  con- 
trasted with  the  legal  conception  of  oblation,  in  relation 
to  which  the  abuses,  buying  and  selling,  had  grown  up. 
Prayer  is  the  primary  idea,  and  the  cultus  is  nothing  in 
itself.  It  is  of  value  only  as  it  is  an  expression  or  form 
of  prayer.  Here  Jesus  is  at  one  with  the  prophets,  in 
the  ethical  as  opposed  to  the  ceremonial  conception  of 
worship.  Like  the  prophet  he  sees  the  ceremonial  not 
only  prevailing,  but  being  prostituted  to  unworthy 
ends.  How  natural,  then,  is  the  prophetic  language  in 
his  denunciation. 

The  Unworthy  Husbandmen 

Mark  xii.,  2 ;  Matthew  xxi.,  33 ;  Luke  xx.,  9 :  from  Isaiah 
v.,  1,  2. 

Hebrew— Isaiah  v.,  1,  2:  "My  friend  had  a  vineyard  on  a 
fertile  hill,  and  he  digged  it,  and  cleared  it  of  stones,  and 


30 


Jesus  and  the  Prophets 


planted  it  with  choice  vines,  and  built  a  tower  in  the  midst  of 
it,  and  also  hewed  out  a  wine-vat  in  it." 

Septuagiut — "  The  beloved  had  a  vineyard  on  a  hill,  in  a  fer- 
tile place,  and  I  surrounded  it  with  a  hedge,  and  fenced  it,  and 
planted  a  sorek  vine,  and  built  a  tower  in  the  midst  of  it,  and 
hewed  in  it  a  place  in  front  of  the  wine-press." 

Mark  xii.,  2 — "A  man  planted  a  vineyard,  and  set  a  hedge 
about  it  and  digged  an  under-vat,  and  built  a  tower." 

Matthew  xxi.,  33 — "  (A  man,  who  was  an  householder) 
planted  a  vineyard,  and  surrounded  it  with  a  hedge,  and  hewed 
a  wine-vat  in  it,  and  built  a  tower." 

Luke  xx.,  9 — "  (A  man)  planted  a  vineyard." 


The  Parable 


ISAIAH  V.,  1-7 


Mark  xii.,  i-io 


1  Let  me  sing  for  my  well- 
beloved  a  song  of  my  be- 
loved touching  his  vine- 
yard. My  wellbeloved  had 
a  vineyard  in  a  very  fruit- 

2  ful  hill :  and  he  made  a 
trench  about  it,  and  gath- 
ered out  the  stones  thereof, 
and  planted  it  with  the 
choicest  vine,  and  built  a 
tower  in  the  midst  of  it, 
and  also  hewed  out  a 
winepress  therein :  and  he 
looked  that  it  should  bring 
forth  grapes,  and  it  brought 

3  forth  wild  grapes.  And 
now,  O  inhabitants  of  Jeru- 
salem and  men  of  Judah, 
judge,  I  pray  you,  betwixt 

4  me  and  my  vineyard.  What 
could  have  been  done  more 
to  my  vineyard,  that  I  have 
not  done  in  it  ?  wherefore, 
when  I  looked  that  it  should 


1  And  he  began  to  speak 
unto  them  in  parables.  A 
man  planted  a  vineyard, 
and  set  a  hedge  about  it, 
and  digged  a  pit  for  the 
winepress,  and  built  a  tow- 
er, and  let  it  out  to  hus- 
bandmen, and    went    into 

2  another  country.  And  at 
the  season  he  sent  to  the 
husbandmen  a  servant,  that 
he  might  receive  from  the 
husbandmen  of  the  fruits 

3  of  the  vineyard.  And  they 
took  him,  and  beat  him,  and 

4  sent  him  away  empty.  And 
again  he  sent  unto  them 
another  servant ;  and  him 
they  wounded  in  the  head, 
and    handled    shamefully. 

5  And  he  sent  another;  and 
him  they  killed  :  and  many 
others  ;  beating  some,  and 

6  killing  some.     He  had  yet 


Quotations  by  Jesus 


3i 


(Isaiah — Continued) 
bring  forth  grapes,  brought 

5  it  forth  wild  grapes?  And 
now  go  to ;  I  will  tell  you 
what  I  will  do  to  my  vine- 
yard :  I  will  take  away  the 
hedge  thereof,  and  it  shall 
be  eaten  up;  I  will  break 
down  the  fence  thereof,  and 

6  it  shall  be  trodden  down: 
and  I  will  lay  it  waste  ;  it 
shall  not  be  pruned  nor 
hoed  ;  but  there  shall  come 
up  briers  and  thorns:  I  will 
also  command  the  clouds 
that  they  rain  no  rain  upon 

7  it.  For  the  vineyard  of  the 
Lord  of  hosts  is  the  house 
of  Israel,  and  the  men  of 
Judah  his  pleasant  plant: 
and  he  looked  for  judg- 
ment, but  behold  oppres- 
sion ;  for  righteousness,  but 
behold  a  cry. 
Matthew  xxi.,  33-41 

33  Hear  another  parable : 
There  was  a  man  that  was 
a  householder,  which  plant- 
ed a  vineyard,  and  set  a 
hedge  about  it,  and  digged 
a  winepress  in  it,  and  built 
a  tower,  and  let  it  out  to 
husbandmen,  and  wentiuto 

34  another  country.  And  when 
the  season  of  the  fruits  drew 
near,  he  sent  his  servants 
to  the  husbandmen,  to  re- 

35  ceive  his  fruits.  And  the 
husbandmen  took  his  ser- 


(M  ark —  Contin  ued) 
one,  a  beloved  son  :  he  sent 
him  last  unto  them,  saying, 
They  will  reverence  my  son. 

7  But  those  husbandmen  said 
among  themselves,  This  is 
the  heir  ;  come,  let  us  kill 
him,    and  the  inheritance 

8  shall  be  ours.  And  they 
took  him,  and  killed  him, 
and  cast  him  forth  out  of 

9  the  vineyard.  What  there- 
fore will  the  lord  of  the 
vineyard  do  ?  he  will  come 
and  destroy  the  husband- 
men, and  will  give  the 
vineyard  unto  others. 


Luke:  xx.,  9-16 
9  And  he  began  to  speak 
unto  the  people  this  para- 
ble :  A  man  planted  a  vine- 
yard, and  let  it  out  to  hus- 
bandmen, and  went  into 
another  country  for  a  long 

10  time.  And  at  the  season 
he  sent  unto  the  husband- 
men a  servant,  that  they 
should  give  him  of  the 
fruit  of  the  vineyard :  but 
the  husbandmen  beat  him, 
and  sent  him  away  empty. 

11  And  he  sent  yet  another 


32 


Jesus  and  the  Prophets 


(Matthew— Continued) 
vants,  and  beat  one,  and 
killed  another,  and  stoned 

36  another.  Again,  he  sent 
other  servants  more  than 
the  first:  and  they  did 
unto  them  in  like  manner. 

37  But  afterward  he  sent  unto 
them  his  son,  saying,  They 
will    reverence    my    son. 

38  But  the  husbandmen,  when 
they  saw  the  son,  said 
among  themselves,  This  is 
the  heir ;  come,  let  us  kill 
him,  and  take  his  inherit- 

39  ance.  And  they  took  him, 
and  cast  him  forth  out  of 
the    vineyard,   and    killed 

40  him.  When  therefore  the 
lord  of  the  vineyard  shall 
come,  what  will  he  do  unto 

41  those  husbandmen  ?  They 
say  unto  him,  He  will  mis- 
erably destroy  those  miser- 
able men,  and  will  let  out 
the  vineyard  unto  other 
husbandmen,  which  shall 
render  him  the  fruits  in 
their  seasons. 


(Luke— Con  tin  ued) 
servant :  and  him  also  they 
beat,     and    handled     him 
shamefully,  and  sent  him 

12  away  empty.  And  he  sent 
yet  a  third  :  and  him  also 
they    wounded,    and    cast 

13  him  forth.  And  the  lord 
of  the  vineyard  said,  What 
shall  I  do  ?  I  will  send  my 
beloved  son:  it  may  be 
they  will  reverence   him. 

14  But  when  the  husbandmen 
saw  him,  they  reasoned  one 
with  another,  saying,  This 
is  the  heir :  let  us  kill  him, 
that  the   inheritance  may 

15  be  ours.  And  they  cast 
him  forth  out  of  the  vine- 
yard, and  killed  him.  What 
therefore  will  the  lord  of 
the  vineyard  do  unto  them? 

16  He  will  come  and  destroy 
these  husbandmen,  and 
will  give  the  vineyard  unto 
others. 


Julicher,  who  holds  that  Jesus  never  uttered  any  alle- 
gories, excludes  this  in  anything  like  its  present  form, 
grudgingly  admitting  that  there  may  have  been  some 
simple  parable  back  of  it.  We  are  not  convinced  by 
Julicher' s  discussion  that  Jesus  never  used  the  allegory 
in  his  teaching.  He  is  represented  as  using  this  means 
of  setting  forth  truth  and  we  see  no  inherent  improba- 
bility in  his  having  done  so.    In  fact,  as  this  was  a  com- 


Quotations  by  Jesus  33 

mon  method  of  his  time,  there  is  intrinsic  probability 
that  he  would,  in  a  reasonable  way,  use  the  allegory. 
In  this  special  section  we  consider  the  discourse,  in  the 
main  outline,  as  a  genuine  discourse  of  Jesus,  although  it 
is  evident,  as  we  shall  see,  that  the  evangelical  writers 
have  done  some  allegorizing  on  their  own  account.1 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  whole  section  in  which  this 
quotation  occurs  finds  its  counterpart  in  Isaiah  v. ,  1-7, 
the  Song  of  the  Lord's  Vineyard.  Jesus  adapts  the 
parable,  or  more  strictly  speaking,  allegory,  of  the 
prophet  to  his  own  teaching.  Although  the  only  part 
of  the  original  parable  actually  quoted  consists  in  the  in- 
troductory words  which  Jesus  uses,  it  will  be  necessary 
for  us  to  consider  the  whole  section  in  order  to  deter- 
mine Jesus'  use  of  prophecy  in  this  instance.  He  evi- 
dently had  the  whole  of  the  prophetic  passage  in  mind. 

L,ooked  at  from  one  point  of  view,  the  parable,  or 
allegory,  of  Jesus  and  that  of  Isaiah  are  identical;  from 
another,  quite  different.  Isaiah's  parable  is  a  "sinnbild ' ' 
of  Israel.  Opposition  has  arisen  to  the  prophet  and  to 
his  teaching.  He  is  speaking  to  self-confident  Israel- 
ites who  have  no  thought  of  any  possible  abandonment 

1  See  Jtilicher's  Die  Gleichnisreden  Jesu  ;  Zweiter  Teil ;  ' '  Die 
bosen  Weingartner,"  sec.  37,  p.  385  ff.—  Jtilicher's  conclusion 
is  :  "  Es  konnte  eine  Gleichnisrede  Jesu  von  bosen  Weinberg- 
spachtern,  die  vielleicht  Mc.  1  19  noch  am  meisten  durcbklingt 
und  deren  Idee  Mt.  43  treffend  wiedergiebt,  existiert  haben  ; 
ein  Versuch  sie  zu  rekonstruiren,  ist  aussichtslos,  da  unsre  ein- 
zige  Quelle  Mc.  12  bis  auf  den  letzten  Rest  als  Produkt  urchrist- 
licber  Theologie,  um  so  weniger  als  autbentiscbes  Protokoll 
einer  kampfrede  Jesu  verstandlich  ist.  '  Dieser  ist  der  Brbe ' 
baben  die  Hierarcben  von  Jesus  nie  gesagt  oder  gedacbt ;  ibr 
Bild  wird  aucb  scbon  mit  Einruiscbung  cbristlicber  Urteile 
gezeichnet.  Das  Urcbristeutum,  nicbt  Jesus  selber  scbeint  Mc. 
12  :  i-ii  das  Wort  zu  fiibren  "  (p.  406). 
3 


34  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

of  Judah  by  God.  The  stress  point  of  the  prophet's 
preaching  is  the  danger  of  this  very  thing.  His  teach- 
ing is  heterodoxy  of  the  most  flagrant  type.  Isaiah,  in 
the  delivery  of  this  parable,  makes  a  direct  attack  on 
his  opponents.  He  depicts  with  graphic  beauty  a 
vineyard  on  a  fertile  hill.  Its  owner  and  planter  has 
cleared  it,  planted  it  with  choice  vines,  and  given  it 
every  opportunity  for  development.  He  comes,  at  the 
season,  to  look  for  grapes,  but  finds  only  sour  berries. 
The  prophet  turns  sharply  to  his  opposers  and  asks  for 
their  own  judgment  as  to  what  the  lord  of  the  vineyard 
shall  do.  Receiving  no  answer,  he  himself  announces 
the  abandonment  of  so  worthless  a  vineyard  and  then 
directly  applies  the  parable :  ' '  For  the  vineyard  of 
Jahwe  of  Hosts  is  Israel,  and  the  men  of  Judah  his  de- 
lightful plant;  he  looked  for  justice  and  behold,  op- 
pression; for  righteousness,  but  behold,  a  cry!"  The 
clear  teaching  of  the  prophet  is,  that  although  God  had 
long  cared  for  and  fostered  Israel  he  would  yet  abandon 
it  to  its  destruction,  owing  to  its  moral  worthlessness. 

Nearly  eight  centuries  later,  Jesus  Christ,  the  great 
successor  of  the  prophet,  finds  himself  in  a  like  situa- 
tion, with  a  similar  group  of  hearers,  in  need  of  the 
same  lesson.  Jesus  has  just  been  engaged  in  a  contro- 
versy with  his  opponents.  Mark  undoubtedly  has  the 
right  setting.  Mark  is  supported  by  L,uke,  except  that 
Mark  xi.,  20-26,  which  is  only  incidental,  is  not  given 
by  Iyuke.  Matthew's  setting  is  plainly  subjective. 
Just  before  this,  Jesus  has  performed  the  symbolic  act 
of  cleansing  the  temple.  He  is  walking  in  the  temple 
(Mark  xi.,  27)  shortly  after,  when  the  chief- priests, 
scribes,  and  elders  intercept  him  and  demand  his  au- 
thority for  doing  "  these  things."  He  first  discomfits 
them  by  his  question  as  to  the  status  of  John  the  Bap- 


Quotations  by  Jesus  35 

tist,  and  then  suddenly  turns  from  defence  to  attack  by- 
means  of  his  powerful  weapon,  the  illustration.  Simi- 
larity of  situation  and  teaching  suggest  this  older  alle- 
gory of  Isaiah.  His  words  are  directed  to  the  leaders 
of  Israel  who  stand  before  him.  Luke's  representation 
that  it  was  addressed  to  the  people  does  not,  as  Holtz- 
mann  seems  to  think,  betray  any  misunderstanding  on 
Luke's  part  that  in  its  application  it  was  directed  to 
the  leaders.  Jesus  probably  does  not  confine  the  idea 
to  a  receiving  of  the  Gospel  by  the  Gentiles  specifically, 
although  this  might  be  included.  He  seems  to  indicate 
more  generally  the  passage  of  the  benefits  of  God's 
grace  from  unworthy  to  worthy  recipients.  Matthew 
(xxi.,  43),  however,  seems  to  limit  it  to  the  Gentiles. 
Jesus  tells  these  leaders  that  the  day  of  their  authority 
and  leadership  is  at  an  end.  The  vineyard  is  their 
property  no  longer.  This  is  in  accord  with  Jesus' 
teaching  regarding  the  Kingdom  of  God  as  we  find  it 
elsewhere.  Not  the  many  called,  but  the  few  chosen: 
Not  the  first  invited  are  to  go  in  unto  the  feast.  The 
Kingdom  of  God  is  to  go  beyond  Israel.  (Luke  xiii., 
28-30,  xiv.,  16  ff.;  Matthew  xxii.,  14.) 

The  servants  refer  to  his  predecessors,  the  prophets. 
(Compare  2  Chron.  xxxvi.,  15,  16;  Nehemiah  ix.,  26; 
Jeremiah  xxv.,  2-7.)  He  has  just  been  questioning 
them  with  regard  to  one  of  these  ill-used  predecessors, 
John  the  Baptist.  The  successive  sending  indicates 
the  largeness  of  the  opportunity  given  them.  In  the 
development  of  the  allegory  the  different  Evangelists 
evince  a  difference  of  understanding  with  regard  to  the 
application  to  the  prophets.  Matthew  (xxi.,  34-36), 
as  elsewhere  (xxii.,  3,  4),  in  reference  to  the  earlier  and 
later  prophets,  makes  two  sets  of  servants.  (So  Holtz- 
mann.)    The  larger  number  in  the  second  case  may 


36     ■        Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

indicate  the  added  force  of  the  later  message.  In  Mark 
and  L,uke  the  simpler  and  probably  more  original  form 
is  preserved,  and  they  represent  merely  the  successive 
prophets  as  they  came  on  the  scene  one  after  the  other. 
Iyuke  is  at  pains  to  make  a  gradation  with  regard  to  the 
treatment  of  the  prophets,  and  reserves  the  killing  for 
the  son.  Here  the  writers  have  undoubtedly  allego- 
rized to  some  extent  on  their  own  account. 

With  regard  to  the  application  as  a  lesson,  however, 
the  accounts  agree.  That  Jesus  refers  to  the  prophets, 
and,  by  the  son,  to  himself,  seems  clear,  and  not  im- 
probable. There  is  indisputable  evidence  that  here, 
near  the  close  of  his  ministry,  at  his  last  sojourn  in 
Jerusalem,  all  of  which  he  realizes,  Jesus  comes  out  as 
the  true  Messiah.  He  here  puts  into  words  what  his 
preceding  action,  in  cleansing  the  temple,  had  symbo- 
lized. He  thus  answers  their  questions  as  to  his  au- 
thority.    His  is  the  authority  of  the  Son  of  God. 

While  Jesus  evidently  depends  on  Isaiah  for  the  form 
of  his  teaching,  he  is  independent  in  his  development 
of  it.  He  does  not  directly  represent  God  as  the 
owner  of  the  vineyard.  He  rather  puts  his  illustration 
in  every-day  speech.  He  has  a  preference  for  putting 
such  parables  into  the  form  of  a  single  event  in  definite 
circumstances  taken  from  scenes  at  hand.  His  parables 
are  such  as  could  happen  in  actual  life  and  are  con- 
cretely put.  (Mark  iv.,  $ff.;  Matthew  vii.,  24,  xviii., 
23,  xxi.,  28;  I,uke  xv.,  11,  etc.) 

Jesus  also  conceives  differently  of  the  method  of  the 
judgment.  In  Isaiah  (v.,  6),  God  abandons  the  vine- 
yard. Here,  in  order  to  make  it  applicable  to  the 
leaders,  Jesus  represents  God  as  giving  it  over  to 
others.  He  shows,  further,  that  with  regard  to  the 
fruits,  the  husbandmen  had  cultivated  the  vineyard  to 


Quotations  by  Jesus  37 

their  own  profit.  While  Jesus  carries  out  his  lesson  in 
a  different  way,  his  parable  still  contains  points  of  con- 
tact with  that  of  the  prophet.  Isaiah  conceived  of 
Israel's  discomfiture  by  means  of  the  nations,  and 
Jesus  seems  to  have  anticipated  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem as  a  similar  means  of  judgment.  The  prophet 
(v.,  3,  4)  appeals  to  his  hearers  for  their  own  judgment 
on  themselves.  Jesus  likewise  uses  the  argumentum 
ad  hominem.  The  main  teaching  is  the  same:  that 
God's  favor  will  pass  from  unworthy  to  worthy  recipi- 
ents. It  is  not  likely  that  our  L,ord  consciously  sought 
any  correspondence  here.  It  is  entirely  natural.  The 
likeness  between  the  illustration  of  Jesus  and  that  of 
Isaiah  is  mainly  in  the  identity  of  the  truth  taught. 
For  the  teaching  of  this  truth,  Isaiah's  picture  suggests 
that  which  Jesus  sets  forth. 

Having  thus  considered  the  use  of  Old  Testament 
prophecy  which  forms  the  setting  of  the  actual  quota- 
tion, let  us  now  discuss  the  words  quoted.  A  compari- 
son of  the  quotations  in  the  Gospels  evidences  either 
expansion  by  Matthew  and  abbreviation  by  I^uke;  or 
abbreviation  by  Mark  and  Luke;  or  expansion  by 
Mark  and  Matthew.  In  the  Syriac  of  the  Sinaitic 
Palimpsest,  we  find  in  I^uke — "  a  certain  man  planted 
.  .  .  and  surrounded  it  .  .  .  and  committed 
it,  etc."  Very  likely  this  may  have  been  in  an  origi- 
nal manuscript.  But  a  shortened  form  in  I^uke  is  not 
unusual.  Writing  for  Gentile  readers,  he  would  not 
have  the  same  concern  to  preserve  an  Old  Testament 
quotation  that  Matthew  would  have.  As  to  the  longer 
form  in  Matthew,  as  we  proceed  in  our  investigation 
we  shall  see  a  tendency  on  the  part  of  the  writer  of 
the  first  Gospel  to  cherish  Old  Testament  citations, 
frequently  amplifying,    sometimes   inserting  them   or 


38  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

adding  them  as  his  own  explanatory  comments.1  On 
the  other  hand,  an  opposite  tendency  to  abbreviate  is 
characteristic  of  the  third  Gospel,  where  the  entire 
matter  is  not  necessary  to  the  writer's  purpose. 

Mark's  is  probably  the  more  original  form.  The 
whole  section  comprising  the  parable  (Mark  xii.,  i-ii) 
contains  all  the  words,  except  four  which  are  unimpor- 
tant, that  are  common  to  the  parallels  in  Matthew  and 
I,uke.2 

A  comparison  of  the  texts  indicates  the  Septuagint 
as  the  source  of  the  citation.  The  terms  are  mainly 
those  of  the  Septuagint.  The  person  is  changed  from 
the  first  to  the  third,  this  being  necessary  in  adapta- 
tion. The  quotation  is  nearly  verbal  from  Isaiah. 
Jesus  may  well  have  used  this  verbal  citation  in  his 
introduction  because  of  his  hearers'  familiarity  with  the 
allegory  which  he  adopts  and  adapts  to  his  teaching. 
The  designation  of  Israel  as  a  vine  or  vineyard  was  a 
common  one.  (Compare  Jer.  ii.,  21;  Kzek.  xv.,  1-6, 
xix.,  10-14;  Hos.  x.,  1;  Ps.  lxxx.,  8-1 1 ;  Joel  i.,  7.) 
Moreover,  this  Song  of  the  Vineyard  of  Israel  was  evi- 
dently well  known.  It  is  used  in  the  Apocalypse  of 
Is.,  chapters  xxiv.  to  xxvii.,  where  the  basis  is  partly 
this  fifth  chapter  of  Isaiah.  (Compare  also  Psalm 
lxxx.,  an  early  Psalm.) 

1  Note  the  following  instances  where  Matthew  is  supported 
by  neither  Mark  nor  Iyuke :  ix.,  36  ;  xiii.,  35  ;  xxi.,  4,  5  ;  xiii., 
14,  15  (his  own  comments) ;  xxii.,  40;  vii.,  12  (to  conserve  the 
Jewish  law);  ii.,  15;  ii.,  17,  18;  ii.,  23;  iv.,  14-16  (where  the 
Septuagint  is  apparently  altered  to  meet  the  purpose) ;  xii.,  17- 
21  ;  xxi.,  4,  5 ;  xxvii.,  9,  10;  xxi.,  10,  11  (where  the  concern  is 
either  to  honor  the  O.  T.,  or  to  add  to  the  proof  of  Jesus'  Mes- 
siahship  by  resting  it  on  the  O.  T.). 

2 Article  " Gospels"  in  the  Encyclopedia  Britannica—Kb- 
bott. 


Quotations  by  Jesus  39 

We  see,  then,  that  in  the  entire  illustration,  and  in 
the  introduction  where  the  quotation  is  verbal,  Jesus' 
use  of  prophecy  here  rests  on — i.  Similarity  of  occa- 
sion. 2.  Similarity  and  almost  identity  with  the  truth 
he  has  to  teach.  3.  The  familiarity  of  his  hearers  with 
the  passage  in  Isaiah.  His  treatment  is  free.  He 
amplifies  and  develops  his  illustration  quite  differently 
from  Isaiah,  while  preserving  many  features.  The 
main  likeness  is  that  of  spirit  and  purpose.  His  intro- 
duction by  the  use  of  the  scriptural  language  was  to 
draw  the  attention  of  his  hearers.  It  was  a  fine  ser- 
monic  use  of  Scripture.  Jesus  used  it  just  as  any 
preacher  or  prophet  of  to-day  might  do  under  similar 
circumstances  and  with  a  like  purpose. 

The  Comer-Stone 

Mark  xii.,  10,  11  ;  Matthew  xxi.,  42  ;  Luke  xx.,  17 :  from 
Psalm  cxviii.,  22,  23.     (Compare  also  Isaiah  xxviii.,  14-18.) 

Hebrew — Psalm  cxviii.,  22,  23:  "A  stone  which  the  builders 
rejected  has  become  the  head  of  the  corner.  From  Jahwe  was 
this  :  it  is  wonderful  in  our  eyes." 

Septuagint— Psalm  cxvii.,  22,  23  :  "A  stone  which  the  build- 
ers rejected ;  the  same  has  become  the  head  of  the  corner. 
From  the  Lord  was  this,  and  it  is  wonderful  in  our  eyes." 

Mark  xii.,  10,  11    )  _Identical  with  the  Septuagint. 

Matthew  xxi.,  42   ) 

The  Setting 

Mark  xii.,  10-12 — "  Have  ye  not  read  even  this  scripture  ; 

The  stone  which  the  builders  rejected, 

The  same  was  made  the  head  of  the  corner : 

This  was  from  the  Lord, 

And  it  is  marvellous  in  our  eyes  ? 
And  they  sought  to  lay  hold  on  him  ;  and  they  feared  the  mul- 
titude ;  for  they  perceived  that  he  spake  the  parable  against 
them  :  and  they  left  him,  and  went  away." 


40  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

Matthew  xxi.,  42-46— "  Jesus  saith  unto  them,  Did  ye  never 
read  in  the  scriptures, 

The  stone  which  the  builders  rejected, 
The  same  was  made  the  head  of  the  corner : 
This  was  from  the  L,ord, 
And  it  is  marvellous  in  our  eyes  ? 
Therefore  say  I  unto  you,  The  kingdom  of  God  shall  be  taken 
away  from  you,  and  shall  be  given  to  a  nation  bringing  forth 
the  fruits  thereof.     (And  he  that  falleth  on  this  stone  shall  be 
broken  to  pieces  :  but  on  whomsoever  it  shall  fall,  it  will  scatter 
him  as  dust.)    And  when  the  chief  priests  and  the  Pharisees 
heard  his  parables,  they  perceived  that  he  spake  of  them.    And 
when  they  sought  to  lay  hold  on  him,  they  feared  the  multi- 
tudes, because  they  took  him  for  a  prophet. 

Luke  xx.,  17-19— "But  he  looked  upon  them,  and  said,  What 
then  is  this  that  is  written, 

The  stone  which  the  builders  rejected, 
The  same  was  made  the  head  of  the  corner? 
Kvery  one  that  falleth  on  that  stone  shall  be  broken  to  pieces  ; 
but  on  whomsoever  it  shall  fall,  it  will  scatter  him  as  dust. 

"  And  the  scribes  and  the  chief  priests  sought  to  lay  hands  on 
him  in  that  very  hour ;  and  they  feared  the  people :  for  they 
perceived  that  he  spake  this  parable  against  them." 

The  passage  is  quoted  from  the  Septuagint  and  is 
identical  with  it.  We  have  in  this  case  a  similar  in- 
stance to  passages  previously  discussed,  i.  e.,  a  short- 
ened form  in  Luke,  who  omits  the  second  half  of  the 
passage.  The  setting  is  the  same  in  all  three  Gospels, 
following  the  Parable  of  the  Vineyard.  Mark  intro- 
duces the  quotation  with  the  words,  "Have  ye  not  read 
even  this  Scripture,"  and  then  immediately  adds,  after 
the  quotation  "and  they  sought  to  lay  hold  on  him,  etc. ' ' 
Matthew's  introduction  is  similar  to  that  of  Mark,  "Did 
ye  never  read  in  the  Scriptures."  After  the  quotation, 
however,  he  puts  in  Jesus'  mouth  a  definite  explana- 
tion and  application  of  the  parable.     ' '  The  Kingdom 


Quotations  by  Jesus  41 

of  God  shall  be  taken  away  from  you  and  shall  be  given 
to  a  nation  bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof."  Luke 
introduces  by  the  familiar  *  *  it  is  written ' '  formula. 
We  have  here  evidence  of  expansion  in  the  first  Gospel 
— verse  43  looks  like  an  explanatory  insertion.  The 
use  of  the  term  ' '  Kingdom  of  God ' '  instead  of  Mat- 
thew's  almost  universal  "  Kingdom  of  Heaven"  is  a 
further  indication  of  lateness.  Luke  does  not  have  it, 
and  we  cannot  understand  why  he  would  leave  out  a 
"  Gentile"  passage.  Verse  18  in  Luke  gives  the 
passage  an  added  Messianic  coloring.  The  parallel  to 
this  (Matthew  xxi.,  44)  is  bracketed  by  W.  &  H.  and 
Tischendorf  omits  it.  It  is  lacking  in  the  Western 
manuscripts.  The  same  passage  in  Luke  is  textually 
supported,  however.  We  shall  discuss  the  Luke  pas- 
sage in  another  connection. 

With  regard  to  the  quotation  from  Psalm  cxviii,  Jesus 
applies  it  to  himself  by  way  of  analogy.  If  the  chief- 
priests  rejected  and  removed  him,  as  they  were  about  to 
do,  he  would  not  really  be  set  aside,  but  by  God's  ap- 
pointment would  become  the  foundation  stone  of  the 
new  building  of  the  Kingdom  of  God.  The  Psalm  pas- 
sage was  a  Messianic  one  and  was  typically  considered 
so  by  the  Rabbis  themselves. 

We  have  here  the  use  by  Jesus  of  another  figure 
familiar  to  his  hearers.  The  term  used  was  a  well- 
known  one,  occurring,  for  example,  in  Isaiah  xxviii., 
14-18.  In  the  Psalm,  which  is  post-exilic,  belonging 
to  the  second  temple,  the  reference  is  to  Israel,  rejected 
by  the  nations,  but  chosen  by  God  to  be  his  people,  the 
conveyers  of  his  message  to  the  world,  the  corner-stone 
of  his  kingdom.  Israel  is  in  sore  distress,  and  would 
seem  to  be  on  the  verge  of  destruction,  but  the  Psalmist 
prophetically  sees  the  rejected  corner-stone  given  its 


42  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

rightful  place  by  God.  Some  critics  refer  the  Psalm  to 
the  Maccabean  period,  representing  the  Maccabean 
family,  once,  without  esteem  but  raised  to  power  by  the 
hand  of  God.  In  either  case  the  interpretation  would 
be  practically  the  same. 

The  wider  teaching  is — the  judgment  and  selection 
of  God  as  a  reversal  of  that  of  man.  Jesus  applies  this 
to  Israel's  hierarchy.  It  is  a  more  explicit  statement 
of  his  teaching  in  the  preceding  parable,  that  the  vine- 
yard was  to  be  taken  from  them  and  given  to  other  hus- 
bandmen. Whether  the  addition  in  Matthew  (verse 
43)>  giving  the  saying  the  definite  application  to  the  re- 
jection of  Israel  and  the  substitution  of  the  Gentiles,  be 
genuine  or  not,  this  would  be  included.  Jesus  had 
ere  this  seen  beyond  Judaism  and  comprehended  the 
necessary  universalism  of  the  new  kingdom,  and 
had  found  already,  in  publicans  and  sinners,  its  most 
worthy  recipients.  Jesus  here  gives  utterance  to  his 
conviction  that  with  himself  as  the  corner-stone  is 
to  arise  the  new  temple  of  the  Kingdom  of  God.  In 
the  parable  he  has  declared  the  fate  of  the  Jewish  hier- 
archy. Here  he  announces  his  own  destiny.  Then 
(Luke  xx.,  1 8)  he  declares  the  fate  of  those  who 
oppose  him. 

Considering  the  parable  previously  discussed  and  its 
explicit  application  here,  the  order  of  thought  is  as 
follows : 

i.  Israel  a  vineyard  of  God. 

2.  It  has  been  given  in  charge  to  the  husbandmen 
who  stand  before  him. 

3.  They  have  proved  unworthy  husbandmen.  As 
their  predecessors  rejected  his  predecessors,  the  pro- 
phets, so  they  have  rejected  the  Son. 

4.  Hence  the  vineyard  shall  be  taken  from  them. 


Quotations  by  Jesus  43 

5.  A  new  order  of  things  is  to  take  place  with  Jesus 
himself  as  the  foundation. 

6.  Judgment  on  those  who  do  not  enter  the  new 
Kingdom. 

The  prophecy  is  used  by  way  of  analogy.  Its  use  is 
didactic  and  homiletic  throughout.  While  it  might 
seem  as  though  for  such  an  explicit  announcement  open 
statement  would  be  preferable  to  the  use  of  parable, 
yet,  in  this  instance,  the  use  of  the  Old  Testament 
figure  really  makes  it  more  explicit.  The  phrases  used 
were  a  part  of  the  dialect  of  those  to  whom  Jesus  was 
speaking.  Every  one  of  those  to  whom  he  spoke  would 
know  just  what  was  meant  by  every  term.  Jesus  thus 
uses  their  own  weapons  on  them.  In  no  way  does  he 
cite  these  words  to  indicate  either  prediction  or  fulfil- 
ment. The  historical  reference  in  the  Psalm  is  to  the 
people  of  Israel.  It  is  the  principle  only  that  applies  to 
Jesus.  He  states  here,  as  elsewhere,  the  reversal  by 
God  of  human  judgment.  The  use  of  this  passage  by 
Jesus  by  no  means  indicates  that  he  used  it  as  the 
Rabbis  would,  as  the  statement  of  any  prediction  re- 
garding himself.  In  his  use  here,  as  elsewhere,  he  is 
concerned  with  the  truth  or  principle  which  the  passage 
sets  forth  in  such  striking  rhetorical  form.  The  same 
Old  Testament  term,  descriptive  of  Jesus,  is  used  in 
Acts  iv.,  11,  Kphesians  ii.,  20,  and  1  Peter  ii.,  7-9. 

The  Challenge  to  Scribal  Interpretation 

Mark  xii.,  36,  37;  Matthew  xxii.,  43-45;  Iyuke  xx.,  42,  43  : 
from  Psalm  ex.,  1.     [Compare  Psalm  viii.,  7  (6).] 

Hebrew — Psalm  ex.,  1  :  "Saith  Jahwe  to  my  lord,  Sit  thou 
on  my  right  hand  until  I  place  thine  enemies  as  a  footstool  for 
thy  feet." 

Septuagint — Psalm  cix.,  1  :  "  Said  the  I^ord  to  my  lord,  Sit 


44  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

thou  on  my  right  hand  until  I  place  thine  enemies  as  a  foot- 
stool for  thy  feet." 
Mark  xii.,  36— 

"  Said  the  Lord  unto  my  Lord, 
Sit  thou  on  my  right  hand, 

Till  I  make  thine  enemies  the  footstool  of  thy  feet." 
Matthew  xxii.,  44 — 

"  The  Lord  said  unto  my  Lord, 
Sit  thou  on  my  right  hand, 
Till  I  put  thine  enemies  underneath  thy  feet." 
Luke  xx.,  42,  43— 

' '  The  Lord  said  unto  my  Lord, 
Sit  thou  on  my  right  hand, 
Till  I  make  thine  enemies  the  footstool  of  thy  feet." 

The  substantial  identity  of  the  Septuagint  and  the 
three  Gospels  is  here  noticeable.  The  only  difference  in 
the  texts  we  have  adopted  is  a  slight  one  in  Matthew. 
Several  manuscripts,  followed  by  W.  &  H.  and  Tischen- 
dorf,  have  the  same  change  in  Mark's  text.  The 
Sinaitic  Palimpsest  also  has  it.  The  change  in  Mat- 
thew may  be  that  of  a  free  rendering,  although  the 
identity  of  the  rest  of  the  quotation  makes  this  doubt- 
ful. The  writer's  rendering  may  have  been  influenced 
by  the  recollection  of  Psalm  viii.,  7,  where  the  same 
word  is  used.  The  latter  seems  to  be  the  probable 
explanation. 

All  three  Gospels  give  the  incident  a  similar  general 
setting.  There  are,  however,  incidental  differences  as 
to  surrounding  and  immediate  occasion.  Matthew 
narrates,  just  preceding,  Jesus'  conversation  with  the 
Pharisees  who  attempted  to  "  ensnare  him  in  his  talk." 
First  Jesus  had  put  the  Sadducees  to  silence  and  then 
had  given  a  striking  answer  to  one  of  the  Pharisees,  a 
lawyer,  who  had  asked  him  concerning  the  great  com- 
mandment in  the  law.     Following  this  the  first  Gospel 


Quotations  by  Jesus  45 

continues:  "  Now  while  the  Pharisees  were  gathered  to- 
gether, Jesus  asked  them  a  question,  saying,  What  think 
ye  of  the  Christ  ?  Whose  son  is  he  ?  They  say  unto 
him,  The  son  of  David.  He  saith  unto  them,  How  then 
doth  David  in  the  spirit  call  him  Lord,  saying,  The 
Lord  said,  etc."  "  If  David  then  calleth  him  Lord, 
how  is  he  his  son  ?  And  no  one  was  able  to  answer 
him  a  word,  neither  durst  any  man  from  that  day 
forth  ask  him  any  more  questions."  Jesus  then  (ch. 
xxiii.)  continues  and  warns  the  multitudes  and  his  dis- 
ciples against  the  formalism  of  the  Scribes  and  Phari- 
sees, and  concludes  by  pronouncing  his  ' '  woes ' '  on 
them. 

Mark  has  a  similar  order,  but  with  a  somewhat  dif- 
ferent rendering  of  the  discourse  concerning  the  ques- 
tion of  the  first  commandment,  and  then  continues 
(verse  35):  "And  Jesus  answered  and  said,  as  he 
taught  in  the  temple,  How  say  the  Scribes  that  the 
Christ  is  the  son  of  David  ?  David  himself  said  in  the 
Holy  Spirit,  The  Lord  said,  etc."  "David  himself 
calleth  him  Lord:  and  whence  is  he  his  son  ?  "  Then, 
like  Matthew,  he  gives  in  shorter  form  the  warnings 
against  the  "Scribes,"  omitting  mention  of  the 
Pharisees. 

Luke  represents  Jesus  as  refuting  the  Sadducees,  after 
which  "  certain  of  the  Scribes  answering  said,  Master, 
thou  hast  well  said.  For  they  durst  not  any  more  ask 
him  any  question.  And  he  said  unto  them,  How  say 
they  that  the  Christ  is  David's  son  ?  For  David  him- 
self saith  in  the  Book  of  Psalms,  The  Lord  said,  etc." 
"  David  therefore  calleth  him  Lord,  and  how  is  he  his 
son  ? ' '  Then  follows  the  warning  against  the  Scribes, 
as  Mark  gives  it. 

The  main  differences  are  Luke's  substitution  of  "  in 


46  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

the  Book  of  Psalms  "  for  Matthew's  "in  the  spirit" 
and  Mark's  "  in  the  Holy  Spirit."  The  writers  also 
vary  as  to  those  to  whom  Jesus'  question  is  addressed. 
Matthew's  phrase  "  in  the  spirit "  is  the  only  case  of  its 
use  in  the  Gospels.  Luke's  "  in  the  Book  of  Psalms  " 
is  his  own  insertion  in  the  interest  of  accuracy.  Mark's 
is  probably  the  original  form.  Matthew  represents 
Jesus  as  asking  the  "  Pharisees  "  a  direct  question  con- 
cerning the  Christ  and  his  relation  to  David.  Mark 
presents  Jesus  as  teaching  in  the  temple  and  referring 
to  the  ' '  Scribes  "as  to  their  Messianic  teaching  con- 
cerning Christ  as  David's  son.  Luke  represents  him 
as  putting  the  question  to  the  ' '  Scribes  ' '  rhetorically 
and  then  giving  his  objection.  This  indicates  a  differ- 
ence as  to  the  idea  of  Jesus'  immediate  aim.  Matthew 
is  evidently  concerned  to  represent  Jesus  as  entangling 
the  "  Pharisees."  While  this  may  be  a  part  of  Jesus' 
plan,  that  is,  to  silence  them,  it  is  not  his  chief  pur- 
pose, although  we  do  find  him  silencing  them  by  similar 
means  and  with  fine  dialectical  skill,  as  in  the  case 
where  he  puts  the  question  concerning  the  status  of 
John  the  Baptist.  But  this  question  was  addressed,  as 
Mark  and  Luke  represent,  to  the  Scribes.  His  main 
purpose  is  to  present  a  great  spiritual  truth  and  to  set 
it  over  against  the  literalness  of  current  rabbinic  scribal 
teaching.  He  falls  back  on  Scripture  itself,  as  he  so 
often  does  in  similar  arguments  with  regard  to  views 
and  customs  of  his  time  which  he  repudiates. 

We  have  here  a  most  significant  teaching  of  Jesus 
with  regard  to  the  right  and  wrong  use  of  prophecy. 
It  is  a  striking  criticism  of  the  rabbinic  teaching  con- 
cerning the  Messiah.  In  their  attention  to  the  literal 
and  detailed  consideration  of  Messianic  traits  they  over- 
looked that  which  was  of  real  and  vital  significance,  the 


Quotations  by  Jesus  47 

moral  and  spiritual  character  of  the  Christ.  The 
Rabbis,  like  some  later  writers  of  the  Christian  Church, 
were  greatly  concerned  as  to  the  Davidic  descent  of  the 
Messiah.  Jesus  refers  here  to  a  Psalm  which  was  cur- 
rently ascribed  to  David,  and  considered  as  Messianic. 
In  Psalm  ex.,  in  the  passage  under  consideration,  ac- 
cording to  the  general  view  David  was  represented  as 
referring  to  the  Messiah  as  his  L,ord.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  later  criticism  has  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that 
the  Psalm  is  not  Davidic,  but  that  it  belongs  to  a  late, 
probably  the  Maccabean,  period. 

It  may  not  be  out  of  place  to  mention  in  this  connec- 
tion, that  to  some  writers  this  has  seemed  to  bring  up 
a  great  difficult}'  in  regard  to  the  matter  of  Christ's 
errancy  in  attributing  the  words  to  David.  Some  ex- 
positors have  even  gone  so  far  as  to  cite  Jesus'  words  as 
a  proof  of  the  Davidic  authorship  of  the  Psalm,  and  as 
overthrowing  all  evidence  to  the  contrary.  But  no  real 
difficulty  exists.  To  suppose  that  Jesus  could  be  cog- 
nizant of  the  results  of  later  exegesis  is  as  grotesque 
and  unnatural  as  to  suppose  that  he  would  claim  for 
himself  knowledge  of  all  modern  scientific  invention 
and  discovery.  While  the  latter  fact  has  been  claimed 
for  him  by  some  modern  writers  who,  like  the  older 
Rabbis,  are  concerned  with  the  unessential  to  the  be- 
clouding of  those  things  which  are  vital,  such  attempts 
have  never  won  assent  to  any  appreciable  extent.  We 
have  abundant  evidence  that  Jesus  accepted  the  current 
views  of  his  time  on  such  questions.  He  undoubtedly 
accepted  the  Mosaic  authority  of  the  Pentateuch  and 
the  Davidic  origin  of  the  Psalms. 

Still  another  question  which  has  troubled  some  com- 
mentators is  that  concerning  the  bearing  of  this  passage 
on  the  actual  matter  of  Christ's  descent  from  David; 


48  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

some  affirming  that  he  here  explicitly  denies  his  own 
Davidic  descent.  But  Jesus  no  more  answers  this 
question  than  the  other.  It  is  plainly  evident  that  the 
Evangelists  and  other  early  writers  did  not  consider  it 
a  denial.  Jesus  is  not  concerned  about  this  question, 
however,  and  he  neither  affirms  nor  denies  his  Davidic 
descent.  As  we  shall  see,  he  teaches  that  it  is  not  a 
matter  of  any  significance. 

This  discourse  of  Jesus  is  not  merely  a  sophistical 
endeavor  to  entangle  the  Scribes  by  citing  scriptural 
contradictions.  The  Scribes  cannot  answer  his  ques- 
tion because  of  their  narrow,  literal,  and  formal  con- 
ception of  Messiah  which  they  have  compressed  into 
the  phrase  "  Son  of  David."  Jesus  himself  can  answer 
the  question,  from  his  point  of  view.  Spiritually  he  is 
David's  lord,  by  reason  of  his  relation  to  the  Father. 
He  really  waives  the  question  of  natural  descent.  His 
purpose  is  to  point  out  the  difference  between  a  concep- 
tion of  Messiah  as  merely  "of  the  seed  of  David,"  i.  e.y 
11  according  to  the  flesh,"  and  that  larger  conception  of 
Messiah  as  "  I^ord,"  i.  e.t  "  according  to  the  spirit." 
(Romans  i. ,  3,  4.)  Here  is  a  truth  entirely  independent 
of  that  criticism  and  exegesis  of  the  Psalm  which  con- 
cerned the  Rabbis,  and  which,  unfortunately,  has  con- 
cerned many  Christian  writers  of  later  times.  As  Toy 
says,  ' '  by  one  stroke  he  overthrew  the  current  theory 
of  the  Messiah  and  substituted  a  purer  conception." 
It  is  the  difference  between  a  political  greatness  depend- 
ent on  Davidic  descent,  and  a  spiritual  exaltation  rest- 
ing upon  relationship  with  God.  While  the  motive  of 
Jesus  was  to  indicate  the  scribal  inability  to  interpret 
the  spiritual  truths  of  the  Old  Testament,  it  was 
mainly  concerned  with  the  teaching  itself.  The  son- 
ship  from  God  was  the  important  trait  of  the  Messiah, 


Quotations  by  Jesus  49 

not  correspondence  with  a  literalized  prophetic  an- 
nouncement. While  the  letter  killeth,  the  spirit  giveth 
life. 

In  reality,  the  term  ' '  Son  of  God ' '  had  no  definite 
invariable  sense  as  applied  to  Messiah  by  the  Scribes. 
This  was  a  secondary  matter  to  the  Jews  and  hence  the 
term  was  vague.  As  Wendt  says,  "  According  to  the 
Jewish  idea  the  Messianic  King  was  also  Son  of  God; 
according  to  Jesus'  idea,  the  Son  of  God,  as  such,  was 
the  Messianic  King."  The  Scribes  considered  descent 
from  David  as  the  clearly  defined  and  significant  mat- 
ter, while  his  divine  relation  was  almost,  if  not  en- 
tirely, an  open  question.  Christ  says — "  The  spiritual 
character  of  Messiah  is  the  important  thing;  blood  re- 
lationship with  David  an  entirely  secondary  matter," 
if  indeed  the  latter  had  any  significance  at  all.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  whatever  reliance  we  may  be  inclined  to 
place  on  the  testimony  of  the  actual  Davidic  descent  of 
Jesus  as  represented  by  the  Gospel  writers,  and  while 
we  cannot  say  that  Jesus  denies  it  here,  it  is  certain 
that  he  never  used  it  as  proof  of  his  Messiahship.  He 
at  least  passed  it  by. 

Right  at  this  point  is  suggested  that  difference  of  use 
of  the  Old  Testament  by  Jesus  from  the  use  made  of 
Scripture  by  the  apostolic  writers,  which  difference  we 
shall  discuss  later.  For  Jesus  does  more  here  than 
point  out  the  error  of  the  Scribes  in  giving  considera- 
tion to  the  ' '  letter, ' '  to  the  subordination  of  the  ' '  spirit ' ' 
in  this  particular  question.  He  repudiates  as  well  the 
means  by  which  they  did  so.  In  condemning  the  act, 
he  at  the  same  time,  a  minori  ad  ma/us,  condemns  the 
principle  of  interpretation  which  led  to  the  error. 
Jesus  strikes  the  death-blow  to  the  whole  method  of 
using  the  Scriptures  which  the  Rabbis   and   Scribes 


5o  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

followed,  and  which  influenced  the  Christian  writers  of 
the  apostolic  circle  by  the  exegesis  and  limitations  of  a 
scribal  age;  a  method  which  is  not  altogether  without 
examples  in  our  own  time.  It  was  by  a  study  of  just 
such  questions  as  that  of  Davidic  relationship  that  the 
evangelical  writers  were  misled.  lateral  conformity  to 
Scripture  was,  at  least  in  part,  their  rule.  Spiritual 
affinity  was  altogether  the  rule  of  Christ,  as  evidenced 
by  his  rebuke  here  and  by  his  own  use  of  Scripture. 
For  him,  conformity  to  Scripture  meant  nothing,  except 
as  it  concerned  the  ethical  and  spiritual. ' 

1  Compare  John  vii.,  26-29,  where  Jesus,  in  uttering  a  similar 
rebuke  to  that  here  discussed,  indicates  the  unimportance  of 
his  earthly  origin  and  relation  as  compared  with  his  relation  to 
God. 

Note  on  the  Question  of  Davidic  Descent.  —  Inasmuch  as 
this  passage  has  been  the  subject  of  so  much  discussion  as  to 
Jesus'  relationship  to  David,  it  may  be  in  order  for  us  to  sug- 
gest more  fully  what  Jesus'  attitude  was  in  this  case.  It  is 
argued  by  some  writers  that  his  object  was  not  only  to  over- 
throw the  idea  of  the  temporal  and  political  kingship  of  the 
Messiah,  but  also  to  dispose  of  the  fallacy  of  his  Davidic  descent 
as  well.  On  this  Colani  says  :  "  A  la  fin  de  ses  vives  discussions 
avec  les  scribes  et  les  pharisiens,  dans  les  tout  derniers  jours  de 
sa  vie,  il  leur  pose  cette  question :  '  Comment  pouvez-vous 
dire  que  le  Messie  doit  etre  Fils  de  David,  tandis  que  David  lui- 
meme  Pappelle  son  Seigneur  dans  le  Psaume  CX.  ?  Si  David 
l'appelle  son  Seigneur,  le  Messie  ne  pent  done  itre  Fils  de 
David.'  Ce  raisonnement  de  Jesus  n'est  pas  un  argument  fri- 
vole  et  des  plus  subtils,  destine  a  jeter  les  scribes  a  leur  tour 
dans  l'embarras,  comme  ils  out  essay£  de  1'y  jeter  a  plusieurs 
reprises.  Ce  n'est  pas  un  tour  de  sophiste.  S'appuyant  sur  un 
passage  d'un  psaume,  qu'il  interprete  comme  les  scribes  eux- 
memes,  il  declare  que  le  Messie  doit  etre  infiniment  plus  grand 
qu'un  David,  qu'un  roi  temporel,  et  que,  par  consequent,  on  ne 
doit  pas  comparer  le  Messie  a  ce  roi,  ni  l'appeler  Fils  de  David 
ou,  comme  nous  dirions,  un  second  David."     (Jisus-Christ  et 


Quotations  by  Jesus  51 

The  Divided  Households 

Mark  xiii.,  12;  Matthew  x.,  35,  36;  Luke  xii.,  52,  53 ;  Mat- 
thew x.,  21 :  from  Micah  vii.,  6. 

Hebrew — Micah  vii.,  6:  "  For  son  despiseth  father,  daughter 
is  risen  up  against  her  mother,  daughter-in-law  against  her 
mother-in-law ;  and  the  enemies  of  a  man  are  the  men  of  his 
house." 

Septuagint— "  For  son  dishonoreth  father,  daughter  is  risen 
up  against  her  mother,  young  bride  against  her  mother-in-law  ; 
all  the  enemies  of  a  man  those  in  his  own  house." 

Mark  xiii.,  12— "And  brother  shall  deliver  up  brother  to 
death,  and  father,  child,  and  children  shall  rise  up  against  par- 
ents, and  put  them  to  death." 

Matthew  x.,  21 — Identical  with  Mark. 

Matthew  x.,  35,  36—"  For  I  came  to  set  a  man  at  variance 
against  his  father,  and  daughter  against  her  mother,  and 
daughter-in-law  against  her  mother-in-law:  and  a  man's  foes  are 
they  of  his  own  household." 

Luke  xii.,  52,  53 — "For  there  shall  be  from  henceforth  five 
in  one  house,  divided,  three  against  two,  and  two  against  three. 
They  shall  be  divided,  father  against  son,  and  son  against  father ; 
mother  against  daughter,  and  daughter  against  her  mother ; 
mother-in-law  against  her  daughter-in-law  and  daughter-in-law 
against  her  mother-in-law." 

It  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  Jesus,  in  these 
passages,  consciously  quotes  the  words  of  Micah.     His 

les  Croyances  Messianigues  de  Son   Temps,  Part  II.,  chapter 
ii.,  page  105  of  the  second  edition.) 

Strauss  takes  a  similar  view.  Renan  takes  a  different  view 
from  that  of  Colani.  He  holds  that  Jesus  knew  that  he  was 
not  the  Son  of  David,  but  that  he  accepted  the  title.  He  says  : 
"  Le  titre  de  ' fils  de  David'  fut  le  premier  qu'il  accepta,  proba- 
blement  sans  tremper  dans  les  fraudes  innocentes  par  lesquelles 
on  chercha  a  le  lui  assurer.  ...  La  croyance  universelle 
6tait  que  le  Messie  serait  fils  de  David,  et  naitrait  comme  lui  a 
Bethlehem.  Le  sentiment  premier  de  Jesus  n'£taitpas  precise- 
ment  cela.  .  .  .  II  se  croyait  fils  de  Dieu,  et  non  pas  fils  de 
David.     .     .     .     Mais  l'opinion  ici  lui  fit  une  sorte  de  violence. 


52  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

familiarity  with  Old  Testament  thought  and  language 
causes  the  expressions  to  spring  naturally  and  spon- 
taneously to  his  lips.     The  passages  Mark  xiii.,  12, 

La  consequence  immediate  de  cette  proposition  :  '  Jesus  est  le 
Messie,'  dtait  cette  autre  proposition  :  '  J£sus  est  fils  de  David.' 
II  se  laissa  donner  un  titre  sans  lequel  il  ne  pouvait  esperer 
aucun  succes."     ( Vie  dejisus,  chapter  xv.,  pages  245^!) 

Among  later  writers  who  hold  that  Jesus  denied  Davidic 
descent  is  J.  Bstlin  Carpenter  {The  First  Three  Gospels, 
chapter  vii.,  section  1,  page  222). 

Stanton  remarks :  "  This  is  to  assume  that  Jesus  set  himself 
not  only  against  one  of  the  most  universally  accepted  points  of 
the  Messianic  doctrine  of  his  day,  but  one  which  could  not  but 
be  deduced  from  the  Old  Testament  itself,  if  Messianic  prophecy 
were  recognized  there  at  all,  and  which  continued  to  be  fully 
believed  among  his  disciples."  {The  Jewish  and  the  Christian 
Messiah,  chapter  iii.,  page  262.)  Stanton's  first  argument  is 
not  a  strong  one,  for  Jesus  did  set  himself  against  universally 
accepted  points  in  the  Messianic  doctrine  of  his  day.  Renan's 
explanation  is  one  altogether  unworthy  of  Christ,  as  we  re- 
marked in  another  connection.  Colani  and  Carpenter  go  too 
far  in  assuming  a  positive  denial.  While  Jesus  would  not  deny 
that  Messianic  descent  from  David  could  be  deduced  from  the 
Old  Testament,  inasmuch  as  it  was  so  deduced  by  the  Scribes, 
he  would  be  able  to  see  a  difference  between  a  deduction  which 
involved  the  idea  of  blood-relationship,  by  a  literal  interpreta- 
tion, and  a  more  general  deduction  which  would  make  the  ref- 
erence to  relationship  with  David  a  national  one,  meaning  that 
Messiah  is  a  son  of  David  as  a  representative  of  the  Jewish  race. 
While  it  is  our  opinion  that  Jesus  did  not  trace  any  direct  rela- 
tionship with  David,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  we  think  that  those 
who  hold  that  Jesus  denies  such  relationship  here  are  equally 
in  error  with  those  who  would  hold  that  because  of  the  Old 
Testament  descriptions  of  Christ  as  being  in  such  relationship, 
he  must  have  had  a  blood  connection  with  David.  The  truth 
is  that  Jesus  neither  affirms  nor  denies  such  connection,  either 
here  or  anywhere  else.  The  very  point  of  this  discourse  shows 
that  for  him  this  question  had  no  importance  at  all. 


Quotations  by  Jesus  53 

and  Matthew  x.,  21,  which  are  identical,  Mark  prob- 
ably being  the  source,  are,  in  an}'  case,  mere  reminis- 
cences of  the  prophet's  language.  Matthew  x.,  35,  36, 
and  Luke  xii.,  52,  53,  although  differing  in  form,  are 
parallels  and  are  similarly  introduced  by  Matthew  x., 
34,  and  Luke  xii.,  51.  The  source  in  quoting  is  evi- 
dently the  Septuagint,  which  is  freely  rendered  in  each 
case.  (See  The  International  Critical  Commentary — 
"Luke" — Plummer,  page  335.)  In  treating  of  Christ's 
use  of  prophecy  here,  it  is  not  necessary  that  we  should 
enter  into  the  criticism  and  exegesis  of  these  passages, 
for  there  is  nothing  in  the  way  of  direct  application  of 
the  prophetic  words. 

The  writer  of  Micah  vii.,  6,  is  characterizing  Jerusa- 
lem as  the  centre  of  the  iniquities  of  the  nation.  He  is 
describing  those  evils  which  are  rapidly  dissolving  the 
nation.  Among  these  are  commercial  greed  and  self- 
ishness. "They  all  lie  in  wait  for  blood;  they  hunt 
every  man  his  brother  with  a  net."  This  has  even 
gone  to  the  extent  of  breaking  up  families,  and  in  their 
selfish  every-man-for-himself  attitude,  sons,  fathers, 
daughters,  mothers,  and  blood  relations  generally  are 
in  strife  and  competition  with  one  another. 

Jesus  is  picturing  the  evils  which  he  sees  to  be  the 
inevitable  result  of  the  preaching  of  his  Gospel.  War- 
fare and  division  will  result,  the  disciples  will  be  de- 
livered up  to  councils  and  beaten  in  synagogues  and 
hated  of  all  men.  Jesus  merely  borrows  this  striking 
Old  Testament  language  in  describing  the  extent  to 
which  these  divisions  will  extend.  It  is  a  free  use  and 
adaptation  of  prophetic  language.1 

1  On  a  use  of  this  quotation  in  the  Mishna  see  Westcott,  In- 
troduction to  the  Study  of  the  Gospels,  "  The  Jewish  Doctrine 
of  the  Messiah,"  page  153. 


54  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

2. — QUOTATIONS   SUPPORTED  BY  MARK  AND  MATTHEW 

Jesus'  Rebuke  of  U?ireality  in  Worship 

Mark  vii.,  6,  7  ;  Matthew  xv.,  8,  9  :  from  Isaiah  xxix.,  13. 

Hebrew— Isaiah  xxix.,  13  :  "  And  saith  Adonai— Because  this 
people  draws  near  with  its  mouth,  and  with  its  lips  honors  me, 
and  its  heart  keeps  far  from  me,  and  their  fear  of  me  is  a  com- 
mandment of  men  which  the}'  have  learned." 

Septuagint — "And  the  I,ord  said — This  people  draws  near  to 
me  with  its  mouth  and  with  their  lips  they  honor  me,  but  their 
heart  they  keep  far  from  me  ;  indeed,  vainly  they  worship  me, 
teaching  ordinances  of  men  and  teachings." 

Mark  vii.,  6,  7 — "This  people  with  the  lips  honor  me,  but 
their  heart  is  far  from  me  ;  but  vainly  they  worship  me,  teach- 
ing as  teachings  ordinances  of  men." 

Matthew  xv.,  8,  9 — Identical  with  Mark. 

Mark  and  Matthew  agree  in  their  rendering,  with 
the  exception  of  the  change  of  order  in  the  first  three 
words,  which  is  perhaps  a  correction  by  the  writer  of 
the  first  Gospel.  Probably  Matthew  is  following  Mark 
here.  The  Septuagint  is  essentially  followed,  except 
that  the  clause  "  draws  near  to  me  with  its  mouth  "  is 
omitted,  and  the  last  part  transposed,  with  changes  of 
wording.  Toy  suggests  that  the  changes  of  order  may 
be  on  account  of  the  use  of  an  Aramaic  version,  perhaps 
one  which  followed  the  Septuagint  closely.  Mark's 
verses  8  and  9  are  probably  an  expansion.  Matthew  3B 
is  all  that  corresponds  to  them.  The  change  of  the 
latter  clause  of  the  Septuagint,  "teaching  ordinances  of 
men  and  teachings,"  into,  "teaching  as  teachings 
ordinances  of  men,"  is  an  improvement  so  far  as  it 
brings  out  the  contrast  between  a  man-taught  and  a 
God-taught  teaching.  We*  have  numerous  examples 
of  such  changes  by  New  Testament  writers,  made  in 
order  to  add  to  the  argument.  (See  Johnson,  The 
Quotations  of  the  New  Testament  from  the  Old,  chapter 


Quotations  by  Jesus  55 

iv.)  Noticeably  enough,  it  is  this  latter  clause,  mis- 
translated by  the  Septuagint,  and  then  misquoted  from 
the  Septuagint  by  the  Evangelists,  which  constitutes 
the  real  point  of  the  saying  as  applied  by  Jesus. 

The  order  of  the  setting  varies  in  the  two  Gospels. 
Both  introduce  the  quotation  in  substantially  the  same 
way.  Mark:  "  Well  did  Isaiah  prophesy  of  you, 
hypocrites,  as  it  is  written."  Matthew:  "Ye  hypo- 
crites, well  did  Isaiah  prophesy  of  you,  saying."  Here 
again  we  have  another  case  of  an  appeal  by  Jesus  to  the 
words  of  the  prophet  as  applicable  to  his  opponents, 
and  again  in  answer  to  a  criticism  on  their  part. 
Hypocritical  worship,  unethical  worship,  without  con- 
nection with  life  and  faith,  was  a  frequent  subject  of 
prophetic  rebuke.  Isaiah  is  replete  with  such  denun- 
ciations. (See  chapter  i.  See  also  Micah  vi,,  6-8,  iii., 
n;  and  Ezekiel  xxxiii.,  31.)  This  is  the  ethical  con- 
ception of  prophecy  as  opposed  to  the  purely  formal 
and  ritualistic.  The  prophet  attributes  the  demorali- 
zation of  those  to  whom  he  speaks  to  the  lifelessness 
of  their  religion.  Then  he  goes  on  to  announce  the 
punishment  of  God.  They  do  not  see  and  hear  him 
but  he  is  going  to  make  himself  heard  and  felt  with 
thundering  voice  and  chastening  hand.  The  prophet 
is  speaking  to  a  people  in  whom  political  security  and 
religious  formalism  have  stifled  reason  and  conscience, 
and  have  emptied  worship  of  all  ethical  content. 

Jesus  sees  in  the  Jewish  leaders  and  their  followers 
before  him  a  like  condition.  Not  political  security,  but 
a  release  from  political  cares  is  here  combined  with 
religious  formalism.  They  have  just  criticised  the  dis- 
ciples for  ' '  transgressing  the  tradition  of  the  elders ' ' 
by  eating  with  "  unwashen  hands."  Jesus  replies  by 
telling  them  that  they  place  their  traditions  above  the 


56  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

''commandment  of  God"  and  set  aside  the  latter  in 
observing  the  former.  He  cites  an  illustration  of  this, 
and,  while  he  speaks,  these  appropriate  words  of  Isaiah 
come  to  his  lips.  His  explicit  "  well  did  Isaiah  proph- 
esy of  you"  means  "well  did  Isaiah  describe  you." 
His  direct  way  of  putting  it  is  for  emphasis.  There  can 
be  no  need  of  seeking  anything  like  ' '  typical  predic- 
tion" in  the  Isaiah  passage.  Jesus'  use  is  sufficiently 
forceful  and  far  more  natural  without  burdening  it  with 
that  literalness  of  citation  which,  as  we  have  seen  (see 
discussion  of  Mark  xii.,  36),  Jesus  rebukes.  It  is  here 
as  if  Jesus  said:  "Listen  to  this  teaching  of  the  prophet. 
You  think  he  speaks  to  those  back  there  in  his  time. 
But  you  do  not  understand  prophecy.  It  is  principle, 
universal  truth,  and  it  applies  to  you." 

While  the  whole  quotation  is  applicable  to  those  he 
addresses,  the  final  clause  states  the  point  of  the  rebuke. 
They  ignore  the  divine  command  and  substitute  their 
own  human  tradition.  Their  method  of  interpretation 
was  one  that  lost  sight  of  the  real  meaning  in  their  con- 
cern for  the  letter  only.  In  making  this  interpretation 
authoritative  they  substitute  human  for  divine  au- 
thority. The  di  fference  between  Jesus  and  the  Pharisees 
and  Rabbis  is  thus  clearly  indicated.  He  goes  back  of 
their  formal  and  external  conception  of  God's  word  to 
the  living  word  itself.  For  example,  his  hearers  are 
thoroughly  familiar  with  the  prophecy  he  quotes,  but 
do  not  see  its  true  meaning.  If  they  did,  they  would 
see  its  moral  application  to  themselves.  Jesus,  seeing 
the  true  meaning,  perceives  its  universal  application  as 
a  great  principle.  In  Jesus'  use  of  prophecy  we  see 
here  again  likeness  of  situation,  hearers  and  teaching 
suggesting  the  prophetic  language.  It  was  a  fine 
sermonic  use  of  Scripture. 


Quotations  by  Jesus  57 

The  Sheep  Shall  be  Scattered 

Mark  xiv.,  27;  Matthew  xxvi.,  31 :  from  Zechariah  xiii.,  7. 
(Compare  Ezekiel  xxxiv.,  2.) 

Hebrew — Zechariah  xiii.,  7:  "Awake,  O  sword,  against  my 
shepherd,  and  against  the  man  that  is  my  fellow,  saith  Jahwe 
of  Hosts  :  smite  the  shepherd  and  the  sheep  shall  be  scattered  ; 
and  I  will  turn  my  hand  against  the  little  ones." 

Vatican  Septuagint — "  Smite  ye  the  shepherds  and  draw  out 
the  sheep." 

Alexandrian  Septuagint—' '  Smite  thou  the  shepherd  and  the 
sheep  of  the  flock  shall  be  scattered." 

Mark  xiv.,  27 — "I  will  smite  the  shepherd  and  the  sheep 
shall  be  scattered." 

Matthew  xxvi.,  31 — "  I  will  smite  the  shepherd  and  the  sheep 
of  the  flock  shall  be  scattered." 

The  Vatican  Septuagint,  probably  owing  to  a  mis- 
reading of  the  Hebrew  text,  gives  the  idea  that  the 
sheep  are  to  be  rescued.  The  Gospels  appear  to  be  fol- 
lowing the  Septuagint,  but  very  likely  an  Aramaic 
rendering.  Mark  is  nearest  to  the  Hebrew.  It  is  prob- 
able that  the  Alexandrian  Septuagint  has  been  changed 
to  agree  with  Matthew.  Both  Evangelists  depart  from 
Hebrew  and  Septuagint  in  rendering  the  verb  in  the 
first  person.  It  is  quite  likely  that  this  is  due  to  Jesus' 
own  rendering,  citing  the  expression  freely. 

Jesus'  use  of  prophecy  in  this  instance  is  that  of  mere 
accommodation  of  Old  Testament  language.  The 
prophet  is  prophesying  the  exile  of  the  people,  the  pur- 
pose of  which  is  to  refine  them  and  bring  them  back  to 
God.  This  original  prophecy  is  for  the  immediate,  not 
a  remote,  future.  The  sword  is  represented  as  the  in- 
strument by  which  God  is  to  bring  this  about.  The 
use  of  the  imperative  is  for  emphasis  (compare  Isaiah 
vi.,  9,  10).  The  sword  is  commanded  to  smite  "  the 
man  that  is  my  fellow  " — ' '  the  shepherd, " — that  is,  the 


58  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

king  or  ruler  of  Israel,  who  shares  with  God  the  gov- 
ernment of  his  people.  "  Smite  the  shepherd  that  the 
sheep  may  be  scattered."  That  is:  "  Smite  the  ruler 
that  the  people  may  be  scattered  in  exile."  This  is  for 
their  purification,  after  the  accomplishment  of  which 
they  will  return  to  Jahwe  and  acknowledge  him  as  God. 
We  have  a  similar  figure  in  xi.,  7,  8,  and  15-17, 
where  the  shepherds  are  referred  to  as  "wearying" 
God.  The  shepherd  is  a  "  foolish"  or  "worthless" 
shepherd  that  cares  not  for  the  flock.  Undoubtedly 
chapter  xiii.,  7-9,  and  chapter  xi.  belong  in  connection. 
(So  George  Adam  Smith,  The  Book  of  the  Twelve 
Prophets?) 

Jesus  merely  borrows  the  language  which  was  used 
by  the  prophet,  and  uses  the  figure  without  any  pos- 
sible predictive  application.  The  parallelism  between 
the  two  situations  is  simply  that  in  both  cases  the  scat- 
tering of  the  followers  is  the  result  of  the  smiting  of  the 
leader.  Otherwise  the  situations  are  totally  different. 
The  shepherd  in  Zechariah  is  smitten  and  the  flock 
scattered  as  the  result  and  punishment  of  their  own  sin. 
This  shepherd  is  a  ' '  foolish  shepherd  ' '  who  does,  not 
visit  those  that  are  cut  off,  nor  seek  those  that  are  scat- 
tered, nor  heal  that  which  is  broken,  nor  feed  that 
which  standeth;  but  who  eats  the  flesh  of  the  fat  and 
tears  their  hoofs  in  pieces;  a  "worthless"  shepherd 
that  leaves  the  flock  (Zech.  xi.,  15-17);  one  of  those 
shepherds  of  whom  God  is  weary  (Zech.  xi.,  7,  8). 

All  this  precludes  anything  like  an  application  of  the 
prophetic  words  directly  or  typically  to  Christ.  And 
yet,  disregarding  all  this,  Professor  Briggs  does  so  re- 
gard it.  (See  The  Messiah  of  the  Gospels,  page  125^*.) 
He  makes  the  prophecy  Messianic.  He  takes  the 
phrase  "  the  man  that  is  my  fellow  "  to  prove  that  the 


Quotations  by  Jesus  59 

servant  here  is  not  the  evil  servant  such  as  Zech.  xi., 
7,  8,  and  15-17,  depicts,  but  a  faithful  shepherd  who 
' ''  falls  because  of  the  sins  of  the  people  whose  shepherd 
he  is, ' '  one  who  ' '  gives  his  life  for  his  flock. ' '  In  this 
way  he  finds  a  way  to  apply  the  prophecy  to  the  re- 
jected shepherd,  Jesus   Christ.     {Messianic  Prophecy, 

page  465.)  . 

As  we  have  seen,  the  natural  interpretation  ot  our 
passage  in  Zechariah  is  that  it  refers  to  the  faithless 
shepherd  of  the  context.  This  is  entirely  in  accord 
with  the  prophetic  method,  which  never  spares  the 
leaders,  but  inclines  to  make  them  largely  responsible 
for  the  sins  of  the  people.  Any  one  who  reads  chapters 
xi.,  1-17,  and  xiii.,  7-9,  would  conclude  naturally  that 
the  prophet  all  along  is  referring  to  the  wicked  shep- 
herd. Professor  Briggs  seems  to  rest  his  interpretation 
on  the  phrase  "  the  man  that  is  my  fellow."  But  this 
is  evidently  ironical.  It  designates  the  office  rather 
than  the  moral  character  of  the  occupant.  It  is  a 
similar  use  to  that  in  Psalm  xli.,  9:  "He  that  eateth 
with  me."  The  fact  that  he  refers  to  this  shepherd  in 
this  verse  as  "my  shepherd,"  and  again  in  chapter  xi., 
17,  to  "  my  worthless  shepherd,"  indicates  the  ironical 

use  here.1 

The  translator  of  the  Vatican  MSS.  evidently  took 
'  '  the  shepherd ' '  in  this  sense.  Strangely  enough,  as  it 
seems  to  us,  while  Professor  Smith  connects  xi.,  1-17, 
and  xiii.,  7-9,  he  refers  the  shepherd  in  the  former  to 
the  worthless,  but  the  shepherd  in  xiii.,  7"9>  t0  the 
good  shepherd. 

But   even  if  we  should   grant   all   this,    any  such 

iThe  reading  in  xi.,  17,  is  doubtless  as  emended  by  G.  A. 
Smith  and  Wellhausen.  See  G.  A.  Smith,  Book  of  the  Twelve 
Prophets,  vol.  ii.;  and  Wellhausen's  Die  kleinen  Propheten. 


60  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

application  as  Professor  Briggs  makes  of  the  passage  to 
Jesus  is  impossible.  Whatever  we  may  say  as  to  the 
character  of  the  shepherd,  the  writer  of  Zechariah  in 
xiii.,  7,  certainly  refers,  by  the  sheep  who  are  to  be 
scattered,  to  the  sinful  people  who  are  to  be  exiled  as  a 
punishment  for  their  sins.  Jesus,  however,  in  his  ref- 
erence to  the  sheep,  refers  to  his  own  faithful  disciples 
who  are  to  be  scattered,  not  as  a  punishment  for  their 
sins,  but  as  a  natural  result  of  the  consternation  into 
which  they  will  be  thrown.  They  will  temporarily 
lose  moral  courage,  be  ' '  offended."  After  this  he  is  to 
restore  and  lead  them.  Here,  then,  the  application 
totally  fails.  And  it  is  to  be  noted  that  Christ's  pur- 
pose here  is  to  express  his  concern,  not  for  himself,  but 
for  his  disciples,  the  sheep. 

The  application  of  the  prophecy  directly  and  literally 
to  Christ  requires  terrible  stretching.  This  is  evi- 
denced by  the  far-fetched  and  distorted  explanations  of 
Briggs,  Johnson  (  The  Quotatio?is  of  the  New  Testament 
from  the  Old),  and  Keil.  Only  the  necessity  for  holding 
to  a  preconceived  idea  would  induce  one  to  so  wrest 
Scripture  to  its  hurt.  To  make  this  prophecy  direct 
and  literal  in  its  application  to  Christ  is  impossible;  to 
make  it  typical  is  to  distort  its  original  significance  by 
splitting  the  verse  in  halves;  to  represent  Jesus  as  thus 
using  is  to  reflect  severely  on  his  judgment  in  the  choice 
of  an  Old  Testament  prediction. 

But  taken  in  the  simpler  sense,  as  the  use  of  an  Old 
Testament  phrase  to  express  the  prediction  that  his  fol- 
lowers are  to  be  scattered  as  the  result  of  the  smiting  of 
their  leader,  it  is  both  natural  and  apt.  Jesus  quotes 
this  just  as  we  would  a  proverb,  or  a  verse,  or  any 
familiar  quotation.     His  use  is  purely  linguistic. 


Quotations  by  Jesus  61 

3.— QUOTATIONS  SUPPORTED   BY  MARK  AI.ONE 

A  Doubtful  Passage 

Mark  ix.,  48:  from  Isaiah  lxvi.,  24. 

Hebrew — Isaiah  lxvi.,  24:  "Their  worm  shall  not  die  and 
their  fire  shall  not  be  quenched." 

Septuagint — "Their  worm  shall  not  die  and  their  fire  shall 
not  be  quenched." 

Mark  ix.,  48:  "Their  worm  dieth  not,  and  the  fire  is  not 
quenched." 

Verses  44  and  46  in  Mark,  which  are  identical  with 
48,  are  omitted  by  the  best  manuscripts  and  by  the  Re- 
vised Versions.  Mark  practically  reproduces  the  Sep- 
tuagint, with  a  change  of  tense.  It  seems  probable 
that  this  passage,  unsupported  by  either  of  the  other 
Gospels,  is  an  expansion,  in  the  second  Gospel,  of  the 
description  of  Gehenna,  possibly  suggested  by  the 
words  "  of  fire"  of  Matthew  xviii.,  9,  and  "  the  un- 
quenchable fire"  of  Mark  ix.,  43.  It  seems  to  be  a 
substitution  for  Matthew's  "  of  fire."  We  should  cer- 
tainly not  expect  the  writer  of  the  first  Gospel  to  omit 
an  Old  Testament  reference.  As  a  matter  of  fact  we 
find  all  through  this  section  (Mark  ix.,  42-49),  connec- 
tions that  are  merely  verbal,  where  the  general  sense 
connection  is  not  fitting.  For  example,  Mark  makes 
the  "  one  of  the  least  of  these  believers,"  of  verse  42, 
refer  to  the  ' '  children  ' '  of  verse  37.  Matthew  appears 
to  be  following  Mark  in  the  main.  This  indicates  a 
later  insertion  of  our  passage,  for  as  we  have  said  the 
writer  of  the  first  Gospel  would  not  omit  an  Old 
Testament  reference. 

A  comparison  indicates  the  preferableness  of  Luke's 
connection.  Mark's  connection  of  verses  42  and  43^". 
is  evidently  suggested  by  the  word  "stumbling"  of 


62  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

verse  42,  which  recurs  in  verse  43.  That  Matthew 
found  this  material  in  two  connections  is  indicated  by 
its  appearance  in  Matthew  xviii.,  6ff.y  where  the  first 
Gospel  follows  Mark,  and  again  in  Matthew  v.,  29  ff. 
The  connection  of  Mark  ix.,  42^.  (Matt,  xviii.,  6ff.)> 
is  a  forced  one  and  has  no  point  of  contact  except  the 
use  of  one  word.  We  have  a  similar  verbal  connection 
in  Mark  ix.,  49,  50.  Luke  (xiv.,  34)  has  the  preferable 
connection  in  this  instance  and  Matthew  does  not  adopt 
Mark  but  has  this  in  his  composite  chapter  (Matthew 

v.,  13)- 

There  is  abundant  evidence  then,  in  this  whole  sec- 
tion of  Mark,  of  editorial  work  of  a  secondary  character. 
It  is  pieced  together  by  purely  external  connection.  All 
this  points  to  the  conclusion  that  this  citation  of  Isaiah 
lxvi.,  24,  is  a  part  of  this  verbal  connecting.  Johnson 
{The  Quotations  of  the  New  Testame?zt  from  the  Old) 
attributes  this  to  Christ  and  calls  it  a  ' '  quotation  by 
sound."  In  the  original  prophecy  this  is  in  a  section 
evidently  composite  in  character.  The  expression, 
however,  clearly  has  reference  to  the  perpetual  burning 
of  the  bodies  of  those  who  had  rebelled  against  Jahwe. 
Were  we  to  attribute  this  to  Jesus  it  is  to  be  noticed 
that  he  does  not  cite  it  as  a  quotation.  It  would  be 
possible  that  he  used,  unconsciously  perhaps,  the  words 
of  the  prophet.  If  so,  this  would  be  attributable  to  the 
fact  that  Jesus  moved  in  the  realm  of  Old  Testament 
thought  and  used  its  language  freely  and  naturally  be- 
cause of  his  familiarity  with  it.  The  use  of  the  pro- 
phetic words  would  be  merely  a  prophetic  expression 
of  the  natural  punishment  of  sin  as  something  eternal. 
The  passage  has  no  particular  significance  in  regard  to 
our  discussion,  being  in  any  case  merely  casual. 

In  view,  however,  of  the  facts  previously  cited,  the 


Quotations  by  Jesus  63 

composite  and  secondary  character  of  the  section  in 
Mark;  in  view  of  the  fact  that  we  can  see  no  reason 
why  both  Matthew  and  Iyuke  should  omit  it  from  the 
original  source  if  it  were  there;  and  in  view  of  the 
many  expansions  of  a  similar  kind  which  the  second 
Gospel  reveals,  we  deem  this  as  in  all  probability  such 
an  expansion,  and  not  a  genuine  logion  of  Jesus. 

4.— QUOTATIONS  SUPPORTED  BY  MATTHEW  AND  UJKE 

John  the  Baptist  an  "Elijah" 

Matthew  xi.,  10 ;  Lukevii.,  27:  from  Malachi  iii.,  1.  (Com- 
pare Mark  i.,  2,  and  Luke  i.,  76.) 

Hebrew — Malachi  iii.,  1 :  "Behold,  I  send  my  messenger 
and  he  shall  prepare  a  way  before  me,  and  suddenly  shall  come 
into  his  temple  the  Lord,  whom  ye  seek,  and  the  messenger 
of  the  covenant  whom  ye  delight  in  ;  behold  he  cometh,  saith 
Jahwe  of  hosts." 

Septuagint — "  Behold  I  send  my  messenger,  and  he  shall  ex- 
amine the  way  before  me.     .     .     ." 
Matthew  xi.,  10 — 

"  This  is  he,  of  whom  it  is  written, 
Behold,  I  send  my  messenger  before  thy  face, 
Who  shall  prepare  thy  way  before  thee." 
Luke  vii.,  27 — Identical  with  Matthew  with  a  slight  exception. 

Mark  i.,  2,  is  identical  with  the  other  Gospels,  except 
for  the  omission  of  "  before  thee."  He  joins  with  it  a 
quotation  from  Isaiah  xl.,  3  ;  the  two  forming  his  in- 
troduction to  the  account  of  John  the  Baptist;  citing 
the  combined  quotation  as  from  Isaiah.  While  some 
texts  include  the  words  "  before  thee,"  they  are  omitted 
by  tf.,  B.,  D.  and  L,.,  and  the  reading  with  the  omis- 
sion is  the  better.  In  I,uke  i.,  76,  it  also  appears  in  the 
story  of  John  the  Baptist  as  a  part  of  the  prophecy  of 
Zecharias. 


64  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

In  the  section  in  which  the  quotation  attributed  to 
Jesus  appears,  the  accounts  in  Matthew  and  Luke  vary. 
Matthew  xi.,  7-1 1  is  so  nearly  identical  with  Luke  vii., 
24-28  as  to  indicate  the  same  source.  Luke  follows, 
however,  with  an  insertion  of  his  own,  and  then,  in 
verses  31-35,  takes  up  the  account  as  in  Matthew, 
verses  16-19.  Matthew  also  has  an  insertion:  "And 
from  the  days  of  John  the  Baptist  until  now  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  suffereth  violence  and  men  of  violence 
take  it  by  force.  For  all  the  prophets  and  the  law 
prophesied  until  John.  And  if  ye  are  willing  to  receive 
it,  this  is  Elijah  who  is  to  come.  He  that  hath  ears  to 
hear  let  him  hear."  Luke,  however,  has  the  passage 
of  verses  12,  13,  "And  from  the  days  of  John,  etc.," 
"  For  all  the  prophets  and  the  law  prophesied  until 
John,"  in  a  totally  different  place  and  renders  it  as  fol- 
lows (Luke  xvi.,  16) :  "  The  law  and  the  prophets  were 
until  John :  from  that  time  the  Gospel  of  the  kingdom 
of  God  is  preached  and  every  man  entereth  violently 
into  it."  This  leaves  Matthew  xi.,  14,  "  And  if  ye  are 
willing  to  receive  it,  this  is  Elijah,  who  is  to  come," 
unsupported  by  Luke.  It  is  to  be  noted,  moreover,  that 
this  is  the  counterpart  of  the  quotation  in  verse  10. 

The  quotation  in  question  is  textually  difficult. 
Weizsacker  considers  it  an  interpolation.  Wendt  says 
that  "diese  Worte  nicht  in  den  Logia  gestanden  haben, 
sondern  von  Mt.,  dem  Lc.  wieder  gefolgt  ist,  in  unseren 
Zusammenhang  eingeschoben  worden  sind."  (Lehre 
Jesu,  Erster  Theil,  pages  74#.)  While  we  do  not 
deem  Wendt' s  argument  satisfactory,  there  certainly 
are  considerations  other  than  those  mentioned  by  him 
which  make  its  genuineness  at  least  doubtful.  The 
quotation  in  Mark  i.,  2,  is  doubtless  dependent  on  the 
citations  in  the  other  Gospels.    (See  Holtzmann,  H.  C.) 


Quotations  by  Jesus  65 

First  of  all  it  is  to  be  noted  that  the  identity  of  the 
quotation  in  each  case,  while  differing  so  entirely  from 
either  the  Hebrew  or  the  Septuagint,  makes  it  evident 
that  the  original  source  would  be  the  same.  If  the 
passage  is  genuine  this  source  is  the  Logia. 

The  fact  that  in  the  only  parallel  to  this  section,  the 
passage    contained    in    Matthew    xi.,    14,    concerning 
Elijah,  which  is  a  companion  passage  to  the  quotation, 
is  omitted,  may  indicate  that  this  is  a  later  insertion 
based  on  Matthew  xvii.,  10-13,  and  Mark  ix.,  11-13, 
where   Jesus   makes   a   similar   utterance  concerning 
Elijah.     It  may  then  have  been  incorporated  into  the 
third  Gospel  still  later.     It  is  to  be  noticed  that  Euke 
has  no  such  account  of  these  words  of  Christ  as  to  the 
identity  of  John  the  Baptist  and  Elijah.     It  is  not  at  all 
improbable  that  if  this  verse  (Matthew  xi.,  14)  is  an 
insertion  in  the  first  Gospel,  taken  perhaps  from  an- 
other place  in  the  Logia,  then  Matthew  xi.,  10,  citing 
the  quotation,  may  have  been  added  by  the  Evangelist. 
We  certainly  do  find  such  additions  in  the  first  Gospel, 
inserted  with  similar  intent.     That  is,  when  the  writer 
or  compiler  saw  a  reference  to  an  Old  Testament  pas- 
sage, he  frequently  looked  up  the  passage  and  inserted  it. 
An  added  evidence  for  this  is  the  fact  that,  although 
Jesus  is  here  represented  as  making  an  explicit  state- 
ment regarding  the  appearance  of  Elijah  in  John  the 
Baptist,  later  on  at  the  Transfiguration  (Matthew  xvii., 
10-13,  Mark  ix.,  n-13)  the  disciples  ask,  "Why  then 
say  the  Scribes  that  Elijah  must  first  come  ?  "  and  Jesus 
makes  this  same  identification  of  John  and  Elijah.     It 
is  difficult  to  see  why  they  should  be  troubled  concern- 
ing this  question  if  Jesus  had  previously  made  this  ex- 
plicit explanation.     Furthermore,  the  identity  of  the 
citations  in  Matthew  and  Euke,  while  yet  differing  so 
5 


66  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

widely  from  the  Hebrew  and  Septuagint,  indicates,  as 
Toy  says,  that  this  is  a  "  traditional  transformed 
Christian  reading  of  the  passage ' '  which  ' '  had  been 
stereotyped  in  an  independent  Greek  form. ' '  {See  also 
Plummer  on  L,uke. )  There  is  thus  evidence  of  lateness, 
at  least  in  the  present  form.  Toy  further  says  that  ' '  a 
similar  transformation  of  the  passage  into  Messianic 
shape  may  have  taken  place  in  the  first  Christian  circles, 
and  thence  have  come  into  the  synoptic  Gospels." 

While  these  textual  difficulties  thus  indicate  doubt 
as  to  the  setting,  and  cast  suspicion  on  its  genuineness, 
we  have  sufficient  evidence  that  Jesus  did  make  some 
sort  of  identification  of  John  the  Baptist  and  Elijah. 
There  is,  therefore,  no  inherent  improbability  about 
Jesus'  use  of  such  a  passage,  and  though  its  present  form 
is  secondary,  we  deem  it  probable  that  there  is  a 
genuine  logion  back  of  it.  Although  in  one  sense  it  is 
perhaps  the  nearest  approach  to  a  literal  application  of 
prophecy  by  Jesus,  it  is  yet  one  which  directly  annuls 
the  scribal,  literalistic  interpretation.  It  is  another  de- 
nial of  the  prevailing  expectation  of  literal  fulfilment. 
(Compare  Matthew  xxii.,  41-45,  Mark  xii.,  35-37,  and 
L,uke  xx.,  41-44,  which  is  a  parallel  case.) 

The  writer  of  Malachi  attacks  the  religious  authori- 
ties of  his  time,  and  his  only  word  of  judgment  is 
against  the  false  and  disobedient  of  Israel.  The  book 
predicts  God's  Day  of  Judgment,  when  good  and  evil 
shall  be  separated.  In  advance  of  this,  however,  the 
prophet  Elijah  is  to  reappear  in  an  attempt  to  bring  the 
nation  back  to  Jahwe.  His  - '  messenger  "  is  to  come, 
first,  to  purge  the  priesthood  and  ritual  that  there  may 
be  pure  sacrifices;  and,  second,  to  rid  the  land  of  its 
criminals  and  sinful  men.  "Elijah's"  mission  is  to 
convert  the  people  before  Jahwe  comes  upon  them  at 


Quotations  by  Jesus  67 

the  "  Day  of  the  Lord."  (JSee  G.  A.  Smith,  The  Book 
of  the  Twelve  Prophets,  vol.  ii.) 

The  section  quoted  by  Jesus  (Malachi  iii.,  i)  has  a 
distinctively  historical  sense.  The  messenger  is  Elijah 
(that  is,  an  Elijah),  the  one  whose  way  he  prepares  is 
Jahwe  Himself.  The  reference  to  Elijah  clearly  means 
"a  prophet  like  Elijah."  The  Jews  of  Jesus'  time, 
however,  holding  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  to  be 
literally  and  verbally  inspired,  and  looking  for  a  literal 
and  detailed  fulfilment,  expected  to  see  the  real  Elijah 
as  the  precursor  of  Messiah.  (S^Schiirer,  The  Jewish 
People  in  the  Time  of  Jesus  Christ,  Second  Division,  ii., 
section  29,  page  156,  "The  Messianic  Hope.")  Jesus 
explicitly  denies  this  literal  view  of  fulfilment,  at  the 
same  time  that  he  declares  its  real  fulfilment.  The 
passage  in  Malachi  is  not  directly  Messianic.  It  has,  as 
we  have  said,  a  distinctively  historical  sense.  The  pre- 
dictions of  Malachi  obtained  a  personal  Messianic  sense, 
however,  among  the  Jews.  This  accounts  for  the  change 
of  the  "  me  "  of  the  Septuagint  to  the  "  thee  "  of  the 
Gospels.  This  change  was  made  to  make  the  passage 
fit  its  Messianic  meaning.  As  we  have  said,  Jesus  in 
all  probability  did  not  cite  this  form,  this  being  a  later 
stereotyped  Greek  form. 

It  is  here  as  if  Jesus  said,  as  he  does  say  in  Matthew 
xi.,  14,  "  You  are  looking  intently  for  Elijah  to  come  ; 
but  yet  you  knew  him  not  when  he  did  come,  for  '  if 
ye  are  willing  to  receive  it,'  if  you  will  have  it  that 
way,  this  one,  John  the  Baptist,  was  your  Elijah.1     He 

Clemen  remarks:  "Das  ratselhafte  Matth.  11,  14,  scheint 
doch  wohl  nur  auzudeuten,  dass  die  Erfiillung  des  Propheten 
gar  nicht  in  einem  Einzelnen  zu  suchen  sei — wenn  sie  wollten, 
mochten  sie  dieselbe  indes  in  Johannes  sehen."— Gebrauch  des 
Alten  Testamentes,  in  den  n.  t.  S.,  page  30. 


68  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

fulfilled  the  hope  of  the  old  prophet.  He  was  a  worthy 
Elijah  and  was  indeed  a  true  preparer  of  the  way  of 
the  Lord  in  his  preaching  of  repentance  and  of  the  com- 
ing of  God' s  Kingdom  and  Judgment. ' '  Jesus  uses  the 
words  of  Malachi  as  a  fitting  description  of  the  character 
of  John.  John  was  a  second  Elijah  in  his  own  char- 
acter and  in  the  nature  of  his  work.  To  suppose  that 
Jesus'  concern  here  is  to  add  proof  to  his  own  claims 
for  Messiahship  by  declaring  John  as  the  fulfiller  of  a 
prophecy  is  to  lose  sight  of  his  real  purpose.  There 
was  no  literal  identity.  That  was  what  the  Scribes 
wanted.  Jesus  is  eulogizing  John  as  a  prophet  and  his 
purpose  is  to  compare  John  with  the  great  prophet  for 
whom  the  writer  of  Malachi  had  hoped.1 

Judgment  on  Capernaum 

Matthew  xi.,  23;  Luke  x.,  15:  from  Isaiah  xiv.,  13-15. 
(Compare  Ezekiel  xxxi.,  16.) 

Hebrew — Isaiah  xiv.,  13-15  :  "And  thou,  thou  hast  said  in 
thy  heart :  The  Heavens  I  will  ascend,  above  God's  stars  I  will 
exalt  my  throne,  and  I  will  sit  on  the  mountain  of  the  assembly, 
in  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  north.  I  will  mount  to  cloud 
heights,  I  will  be  like  the  Most  High.  But  thou  shalt  be 
hurled  down  to  sheol,  into  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  pit." 

Septuagint — "But  thou    sayest    in    thy    thought, — To    the 

'The  difference  between  the  general  New  Testament  concep- 
tion of  Elijah  as  the  forerunner  and  that  of  the  rabbinic 
traditions  is  pointed  out  by  Edersheim,  The  Life  and  Times 
of  Jesus  the  Messiah,  vol.  ii.,  appendix  viii.,  Rabbinic  Traditions 
about  Elijah,  the  Forerunner  of  the  Messiah.  Edersheim  re- 
marks :  "From  whatever  source  the  sketch  of  the  activity 
and  mission  of  the  Baptist  be  derived,  it  cannot  have  been  from 
the  ideal  of  the  ancient  Synagogue,  nor  yet  from  popularly 
current  Jewish  views.  And,  indeed,  could  there  be  a  greater 
contrast  than  between  the  Jewish  forerunner  of  the  Messiah  and 
him  of  the  New  Testament  ?  " 


Quotations  by  Jesus  69 

heavens  I  will  mount,  above  the  stars  of  heaven  I  will  place  my 
throne,  I  will  sit  in  the  high  mountain,  upon  the  high  mountains 
of  the  north,  I  will  mount  above  the  clouds,  will  be  like  the 
highest.  But  now  unto  Hades  thou  shalt  be  cast  down,  and 
unto  the  foundations  of  the  earth." 

Matthew  xi.,  23— "And  thou,  Capernaum,  shalt  thou  be  ex- 
alted unto  heaven  ?  unto  Hades  shalt  thou  go  down." 

Luke  x.,  15 — "And  thou,  Capernaum,  shalt  thou  be  exalted 
unto  heaven?  unto  Hades  shalt  thou  be  brought  down." 

These  citations  do  not  follow  the  Septuagint  verbally. 
Toy  considers  them  as  probably  from  the  Aramaic. 
The  Septuagint  may  have  been  the  source,  however, 
the  change  of  person  being  made  to  suit  the  appli- 
cation. The  accounts  in  which  this  passage  occurs 
(sections  Matthew  xi.,  20-24  an<^  Luke  x.,  13-15)  are 
fragmentary.  As  a  matter  of  fact  we  have  no  rec- 
ord of  any  works  of  Jesus  in  these  places,  such  as  are 
referred  to  as  ground  for  the  judgment  pronounced  on 
them. 

The  connections  in  Matthew  and  Luke  are  different. 
In  the  first  Gospel  this  section  appears  in  a  collection 
of  moral  criticisms  by  Jesus  on  his  age.  In  Luke  it  is 
a  part  of  his  address  to  the  Seventy.  This  is  a  mere 
reminiscence  of  prophetic  language.  In  Isaiah,  the 
prophet  adds  to  his  prophecy  of  the  overthrow  of  Baby- 
lon a  satirical  ode  concerning  her  king.  That  Jesus 
uses  the  words  cited  entirely  out  of  any  connection  with 
the  Old  Testament  situation  is  evident  from  his  com- 
parison of  Tyre,  Sidon,  and  (in  Matthew)  Sodom, 
which,  of  course,  has  no  reference  to  the  situation  in 
Isaiah.  We  have  here  an  instance  of  the  use  by  Jesus 
of  one  of  the  scriptural  figures  with  which  he  was  so 
familiar.  This  was  probably  a  familiar  passage.  We 
have  a  similar  phraseology  in  Ezekiel  xxxi.,  16,  "I 


70  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

made  the  nations  to  shake  at  the  sound  of  his  fall,  when 
I  cast  him  down  to  sheol  with  them  that  descend  into 
the  pit."  Strictly  speaking,  this  is  not  a  quotation. 
It  is  the  mere  borrowing  of  a  scriptural  description. 

Mercy  ;  not  Sacrifice 

Matthew  ix.,  13,  xii.,  7:  from  Hosea  vi.,  6.  (Compare  1 
Samuel  xv.,  22,  and  Micah  vi.,  6-8  ;  also  Matthew  xxiii.,  23.) 

Hebrew— Hosea  vi.,  6:  "For  [inward]  love  I  desire  and  not 
[external]  sacrifice  ;  and  knowledge  of  God  more  than  [or, 
rather  than]  burnt-offerings." 

Septuagint — "  Therefore  mercy  I  desire  rather  than  sacrifice 
and  knowledge  of  God  rather  than  burnt-offerings." 

Matthew  ix.,  13 — "But  go  and  learn  what  this  signifies,— I 
desire  mercy  and  not  sacrifice." 

Matthew  xii.,  7 — "  But  if  ye  had  known  what  this  meaneth,  I 
desire  mercy  and  not  sacrifice,  ye  would  not  have  condemned 
the  guiltless." 

The  Hebrew  original  may  mean  either  • <  mercy ' '  or 
"  love,"  in  the  larger  sense.  The  Septuagint  render- 
ing of  '  ■  not ' '  and  • '  more  than  "  by  "  rather ' '  gives 
the  sense  better  than  the  literal  Hebrew.  These  pas- 
sages in  Matthew  are  nearer  to  the  Hebrew  than  to  the 
Septuagint,  although  several  of  the  Septuagint  words 
are  identical.  It  is  probable  however  that  Matthew 
follows  an  Aramaic  rendering. 

Three  questions  arise  at  the  outset.  1.  Is  this  a 
genuine  utterance  of  Jesus?  2.  If  it  is,  was  it  uttered 
on  two  occasions,  or  is  it  a  case  of  doubleting  in  Mat- 
thew? 3.  If  genuine,  what  was  the  connection  or 
connections  in  which  it  was  uttered  ?  It  seems  strange 
that  so  striking  a  saying  should  be  omitted  by  both 
Mark  and  Luke,  especially  by  Luke.  If  genuine  we 
here  have  evidence  that  Luke  did  not  have  our  Gospel 
of  Matthew  nor  the  same  Logia  as  Matthew.     A  con- 


Quotations  by  Jesus  71 

siderable  part  of  one  section  containing  this  passage, 
Matthew  xii.,  5-7,  does  not  appear  in  Mark  and  Luke, 
Matthew  and  Mark  connect  two  Sabbath  incidents  as 
occurring  apparently  on  the  same  Sabbath,  while  Luke 
connects  them,  but  represents  them  as  on  two  different 
Sabbaths.  Matthew  xii.,  5-7  looks  like  an  insertion  in 
this  place.  In  addition  to  the  fact  that  it  breaks  the 
connection  in  Mark  and  Luke,  it  does  not,  in  the  first 
Gospel,  carry  out  a  straightforward,  connected  argu- 
ment. The  similarity  between  verse  5  and  verse  $ff. 
accounts  for  its  arbitrary  insertion.  Verse  6,  "  But  I 
say  unto  you,  that  one  greater  than  the  temple  is  here," 
does  not  seem  fitting  in  the  connection,  for  the  disciples 
have  not  in  any  way  offended  with  regard  to  Pharasaic 
law  on  Jesus'  account,  and  they  would  not  need  his  au- 
thority in  the  matter.  Verse  7,  while  it  has  an  indirect 
application,  does  not  directly  fit  the  general  connection 
any  better,  for  the  disciples  are  not  guiltless  here  espe- 
cially because  they  have  mercy  or  love  as  over  against 
their  formal  law-breaking. 

Verse  5  would  suit  some  such  connection  as  that  of 
John  vii.,  23.  Verse  6  is  another  saying  similar  to 
Matthew  xii.,  41,  42.  Verse  7,  with  which  we  are 
especially  concerned,  would  be  fitting  in  such  a  connec- 
tion as  Matthew  xxiii.,  23^".,  Luke  xiii.,  15,  Luke 
xiv.,  1-6,  or  possibly  in  reference  to  any  of  the  accounts 
of  Sabbath  healing.  Of  course  the  question  as  to 
whether  it  would  apply  to  the  latter  depends  on  whether 
Christ,  speaking  in  Aramaic,  used  "mercy"  in  the 
sense  which  we  have  indicated  as  the  prophet's  use, 
that  is,  a  right  attitude  of  heart,  love  ;  or  in  the  strict 
sense  of  "  mercy."  If  the  former,  it  would  not  be  so 
applicable  to  a  Sabbath-healing,  where  the  idea  would 
be  that  of  compassion  or  mercy.     The  use  of  the  word 


72  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

does  not  determine  the  question,  for  this  is  the  regular 
Septuagint  translation  for  the  original. 

Turning  to  Matthew  ix.,  13,  this  passage  is  probably 
out  of  place,  for  with  the  exception  of  its  insertion, 
the  parallel  accounts  in  this  immediate  connection 
agree  with  the  first  Gospel.  It  is  inappropriate  here. 
While  the  quotation  is  thus,  in  both  instances,  out  of 
place,  it  has  the  ring  of  a  genuine  saying  of  Jesus. 
[Compare  Mark  ii.,  18,  Mark  vii.,  15  (Matthew  xv., 
11),  and  Mark  xii.,  33.]  It  is  a  prophetic  teaching 
which  is  identical  with  his  own:  that  of  the  ethical 
as  opposed  to  the  purely  ritualistic  service  of  God. 
Furthermore,  the  fact  that  Matthew  has  it  twice  would 
perhaps  indicate  that  he  found  it  twice  and  sought  to 
find  two  fitting  connections  for  it.  It  is  a  saying 
which  Jesus  might  well  have  used  twice,  once  in  such 
a  connection  as  Matthew  xxiii.,  23^*.,  and  again  in 
connection  with  a  Sabbath-healing.  At  all  events,  the 
fact  that  it  is  out  of  a  proper  connection  in  Matthew 
does  not  argue  for  its  ungenuineness,  inasmuch  as  a 
large  proportion  of  the  material  of  the  first  Gospel  is  out 
of  historical  connection.  On  the  grounds  of  intrinsic 
probability  we  deem  it  a  genuine  citation  by  Jesus. 

Its  meaning  is  clear,  and  it  is  used  just  as  the  pro- 
phet used  it.  In  Hosea  vi.,  6,  contained  in  a  section  in 
which  repentance  is  the  theme,  the  prophet  cites  as  a 
great  fault,  the  lack  of  ' '  knowledge ' '  in  his  hearers. 
They  do  not ' '  know ' '  God  in  experience.  They  do  not 
comprehend  him.  If  they  did  they  would  realize  that 
what  he  desires  is  not  external  sacrifice  and  burnt-offer- 
ings, but  a  right  attitude  of  heart  and  a  true  inward 
knowledge  or  experience  of  God. 

Jesus  repeatedly  found  this  same  misunderstanding 
in  the  Israel  of  his  time.     Suppose  it  to  be  uttered  in 


Quotations  by  Jesus  73 

connection  with  such  a  passage  as  Matthew  xxiii., 
2%  24  (Luke  xi.,  42^".),  "  Woe  unto  you,  Scribes  and 
Pharisees,  hypocrites!  for  ye  tithe  mint  and  anise  and 
cummin,  and  have  left  undone  the  weightier  matters  of 
the  law,  justice  and  mercy  (eAeo?)  and  faith:  but  these 
ye  ought  to  have  done,  and  not  to  have  left  the  other 
undone.  Ye  blind  guides,  that  strain  out  the  gnat  and 
swallow  the  camel"  ;  then  adding,  "  Go  ye  and  learn 
what  this  meaneth;  I  desire  mercy  and  not  sacrifice." 
Such  a  connection  as  this  is  eminently  fitting.  Jesus' 
use  of  the  prophecy  would  be  determined  again  by  the 
similarity  of  situation,  hearers,  and  teaching.  It  would 
be  a  powerful  homiletic  use  of  Scripture.  Here,  as  so 
frequently,  he  uses  the  Pharisees'  own  weapon  on 
them.  He  says,  "  You  who  are  so  punctilious  for  the 
outward  observance  of  law,  and  who  criticise  me  for 
not  observing  an  external  ordinance,  go  and  look  to 
the  Scriptures  which  contain  the  law  and  see  what  they 
themselves  say,  go  and  learn  what  this  meaneth, 
Mercy,  inward  love,  I  desire  and  not  external  sacri- 
fice." The  quotation  was  as  fitting  a  one  as  Jesus 
could  have  cited  to  bring  out  the  clear  distinction  be- 
tween the  ethical  and  the  ritual,  a  distinction  which  he 
traced  to  the  very  nature  of  God,  as  did  the  prophet  be- 
fore him.  A  preacher  to-day  could  find  no  more  strik- 
ing text  for  the  same  sermon. ' 

The  Sermon  at  Nazareth 

Luke  iv.,  18,  19:  from  Isaiah  lxi.,  1,  2.  (Compare  Isaiah 
lviii.,  6,  and  xlii.,  7.) 

Hebrew — Isaiah  lxi,  1,  2 :  "The  spirit  of  the  Lord  Jahwe  is 
upon   me,  because  Jahwe  hath  anointed  me  to  bring  good 

1  On  the  insertion  in  Matthew's  connections,  see  Holtzmann, 
Neue  Testamentliche  Theologie,  vol.  i.,  pages  142-147. 


74  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

tidings  to  the  afflicted;  he  hath  sent  me  to  bind  up  the 
broken-hearted,  to  proclaim  to  the  captives  release,  and  to  the 
prisoners  deliverance  [opening]  ;  to  proclaim  a  year  of  grace  of 
Jahwe  and  a  day  of  vengeance  for  our  God ;  to  comfort  all 
mourners." 

Septuagint — *'  The  spirit  of  the  Lord  is  upon  me,  because  he 
hath  anointed  me  to  announce  good  news  to  the  poor,  he  hath 
sent  me  to  heal  the  broken-hearted,  to  proclaim  to  the  cap- 
tives release,  and  to  the  blind  recovery  of  sight,  to  announce  an 
acceptable  year  of  the  Lord,  and  a  day  of  requiting  ;  to  cheer  all 
the  mourners." 

Luke  iv.,  18,  19 — "The  spirit  of  the  Lord  is  upon  me,  because 
he  hath  anointed  me  to  announce  good  news  to  the  poor,  he 
hath  sent  me  to  proclaim  to  the  captives  release,  and  to  the 
blind  recovery  of  sight,  to  send  away  at  liberty  the  crushed,  to 
proclaim  an  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord." 

Verses  20  and  21 :  "And  he  closed  the  book  and  gave 
it  back  to  the  attendant,  and  sat  down :  and  the  eyes  of 
all  in  the  synagogue  were  fastened  on  him.  And  he 
began  to  say  unto  them,  To-day  hath  this  Scripture 
been  fulfilled  in  your  ears." 

The  Septuagint  of  this  passage  follows  the  Hebrew 
in  the  main.  The  Hebrew  refers  to  the  opening  of  a 
prison — deliverance.  The  Septuagint  translator  ren- 
dered the  word  in  its  usual  sense,  of  opening  the  eyes, 
and  this  necessitated  taking  the  following  word  as 
' '  bound ' '  in  the  sense  of  blindness.  The  Septuagint 
may  have  been  influenced  in  this  by  Isaiah  xlii.,  7. 
Luke  follows  the  Septuagint  almost  verbally,  except 
that  he  abridges  and  transposes  and  adds  in  order  to 
complete  this  "programme"  of  Christ's  ministry. 
The  clause  which  he  omits  from  Isaiah  lxi.,  1,  2,  is 
found  in  a  few  texts  of  Luke,  but  is  lacking  in  S. ,  B. 
D.  L-,  most  manuscripts  of  the  Lat.  Ven.,  the  best  of 
the  Vulgate,  all  the  best  editions,  and  the  R.  V.     In 


Quotations  by  Jesus  75 

those  manuscripts  where  it  occurs  it  was  probably  a 
later  insertion  to  complete  the  quotation.  {See  a  similar 
instance  in  Matthew  xv.,  Sff.)  Among  conjectural 
explanations  of  these  changes  that  of  Toy  {Quotations 
in  the  New  Testament,  page  79)  is  reasonable.  ■ '  L,uke 
evidently  follows  the  Septuagint;  and  the  error  here 
came  from  a  Septuagint  scribe,  who  misread  his  Hebrew 
manuscript,  or  had  a  corrupt  text.  By  the  change  of 
certain  letters,  the  Hebrew  of  the  clause  omitted  by 
L,uke  becomes  the  same  with  that  of  Isaiah  lviii.,  6,  and 
may  have  been  similarly  translated  by  some  Greek 
scribe  in  the  margin  of  his  copy  of  the  Septuagint."  • 

We  may  suppose  that  a  Septuagint  scribe,  by  error 
of  eye,  omitted  the  clause  "  to  heal  the  broken- 
hearted," and  that  another,  perceiving  the  omission, 
repaired  it  by  the  insertion  of  this  new  translation, 
which,  however,  he  introduced  in  the  wrong  place, 
either  through  inadvertence,  or  to  avoid  the  juxtaposi- 
tion of  two  similar  words.  It  would  have  read  liter- 
ally, "he  sent  me  to  send  the  crushed  into  liberty." 
L,uke,  or  some  later  scribe  of  L,uke's  Gospel,  followed 
this  erroneous  Greek  text." 

L,uke's  wording  possibly  indicates  an  Aramaic  ver- 
sion. While  such  a  conjecture  as  Toy's  indicates  only 
a  possibility,  the  general  identity  of  Luke  with  the 
Septuagint  indicates  this  as  the  most  probable  source. 
Jesus,  of  course,  did  not  use  the  inserted  expression 
from  Isaiah  lviii.,  6,  although  Lightfoot  tries  to  explain 
it  by  the  fact  that  it  was  lawful  to  skip  from  one  pas- 
sage to  another  in  the  reading  of  the  prophets.  There 
is  nothing  in  the  nature  of  the  case  to  indicate  such  a 
probability  here,  however,  and  undoubtedly  the  words, 

Compare  the  Hebrew  of  Is.  bd.,  1,  and  Is.,  lviii.,  6. 


76  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

as  Jesus  read  them,  would  be  practically  identical  with 
our  Hebrew.  We  have  no  proof  of  the  existence  of  an 
Aramaic  version  at  this  time. 

This  visit  to  Nazareth  is  probably  that  of  Matthew 
xiii.,  53-58,  Mark  vi.,  1-6,  and  John,  chapter  iv.;.  al- 
though this  has  been  disputed  (see  Godet).  The  ac- 
counts do  not  agree,  however,  as  to  its  place  in  the 
course  of  Jesus'  ministry.  Matthew,  Luke,  and  John 
place  it  earlier  than  Mark.  It  would  seem  as  though 
Mark  put  it  too  late  and  Luke  certainly  too  early. 
Mark  here  seems  to  be  moved  by  subjective  reasons, 
placing  it  at  the  close  of  a  series  of  great  works  to  make 
a  climax.  Moreover,  Mark's  connection  at  both  be- 
ginning and  end  is  a  loose  one.  With  regard  to 
Luke's  connection,  if  verse  23  is  in  place  here,  the  ref- 
erence to  Capernaum  would  seem  to  prevent  it  from 
occurring  as  early  as  this  (see  Luke  iv.,  31-41).  It  is 
probable,  however,  that  verses  23  and  24  are  not  in 
their  proper  setting.  They  interrupt  the  discourse. 
Of  course  it  is  possible  that  Luke  may  have  combined 
two  accounts.  But  there  are  apparent  editorial  reasons 
for  Luke's  placing  the  sermon  here,  namely,  as  a  fit- 
ting introduction,  " Programmstiick"  to  his  story  of 
Christ's  ministry,  along  with  the  account  of  the  temp- 
tation. Notwithstanding  that  we  cannot  accurate^ 
locate  the  incident,  and  that  Luke  alone  records  it,  it 
bears  the  inherent  marks  of  historicity. 

The  Original  Prophecy 

Regarding  the  announcement  in  Isaiah  lxi.,  opinion 
among  scholars  is  divided  as  to  whether  this  refers  to 
the  prophet  himself  or  to  the  "servant  of  Jahwe." 
Delitzsch,  Driver,  Briggs,  and  at  last  accounts  Cheyne, 
who  formerly  thought  otherwise,  and  others,  apply  it 


Quotations  by  Jesus  77 

to  the  servant.  On  the  other  hand,  Hwald,  Dillman, 
and  Kriiger,  with  many  others,  apply  it  to  the  prophet 
himself.  G.  A,  Smith,  "while  feeling  that  the  evi- 
dence is  not  conclusive  against  either, ' '  inclines  to  think 
that  "  there  is,  on  the  whole,  less  objection  to  its  being 
the  prophet  who  speaks  than  to  its  being  the  servant. ' ' 
{Book  of  Isaiah,  vol.  ii.)  He  adds  further,  "  But  it  is 
not  a  very  important  question  which  is  intended,  for  the 
servant  was  representative  of  prophecy;  and  if  it  be  the 
prophet  who  speaks  here,  he  also  speaks  with  the  con- 
science of  the  whole  function  and  aim  of  the  prophet's 
order."  ■ 

The  fact  that  the  servant  is  not  mentioned,  as  in  at 
least  nearly  all  other  passages  where  introduced;  that 
the  servant's  discourse  never  elsewhere  passes  without 
transition  to  that  of  Jahwe,  as  it  does  here  in  verse  8, 
while  this  is  a  common  practice  in  the  speech  of  the 
prophet;  that  several  words  are  terms  used  of  the  pro- 
phet and  not  of  the  servant;  and  that  the  whole  tenor 
of  the  passage  indicates  the  announcement  of  a  pro- 
phetic mission,  inclines  us  to  apply  it  to  the  prophet 
who  has  been  speaking  in  chapter  lx.  It  is  a  felicitous 
summing  up  of  the  substance  of  the  best  Old  Testa- 
ment prophecy. 

In  any  event,  however,  the  use  of  the  prophecy  by 
Jesus  would  not  be  changed.  The  Targums  preface 
the  passage  with  these  words,  "The  prophet  says." 
Although  the  Targums  are  by  no  means  altogether  re- 
liable authority  and  are  late,  they  do  reflect  the  tradi- 
tions of  pre-Christian  Judaism.  Furthermore,  while 
the  application  of  the  ' '  servant  of  Jahwe ' '  to  certain 

1  See  further,  Delitzsch,  Com.  on  Isaiah,  vol.  ii.,  and  Kriiger, 
Essai  sur  la  Thiologie  d'lsaie,  and  G.  A.  Smith,  Commentary 
on  Isaiah,  vol.  ii. 


78  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

sections  of  Isaiah  appears  in  such  works  as  the  Wisdom 
of  Solomon,  this  section  is  not  so  applied.  So,  what- 
ever a  later  exegesis  and  interpretation  may  decide  as 
to  Isaiah  lxi.,  it  is  altogether  probable  that  Christ  used 
the  quotation  with  the  view  of  its  original  application 
to  the  prophet  himself.  As  G.  A.  Smith  says,  ' '  On 
the  whole,  then,  we  must  be  content  to  feel  about  this 
passage,  what  we  must  have  already  felt  about  many 
others  in  our  prophecy,  that  the  writer  is  more  anxious 
to  place  before  us  the  whole  range  and  ideal  of  the  pro- 
phetic gift  than  to  make  clear  in  whom  this  ideal  is  real- 
ized."    Such  would  be  the  conception  of  Jesus. 

The  prophet  is  speaking  to  the  exiles  in  Babylon  and 
declares  himself  as  the  messenger  of  Jahwe  to  proclaim 
the  end  of  their  captivity  and  their  restoration  to  their 
rightful,  blessed  relationship  with  Jahwe.  ' '  The  spirit 
of  the  I,ord  Jahwe  is  upon  me,  because  Jahwe  hath 
anointed  me  to  bring  good  tidings  to  the  afflicted;  he 
hath  sent  me  to  bind  up  the  broken-hearted,  to  pro- 
claim to  the  captives  release,  and  to  the  prisoners  de- 
liverance; to  proclaim  a  year  of  grace  of  Jahwe  and  a 
day  of  vengeance  for  our  God;  to  comfort  all  mourners; 
to  offer  to  the  mourners  of  Zion,  to  give  unto  them  a 
diadem  for  ashes,  the  oil  of  joy  for  mourning,  the  mantle 
of  praise  for  the  spirit  of  faintness;  so  that  men  may  call 
them  Oaks-of-Righteousness,  the  planting  of  Jahwe, 
that  he  may  break  into  glory." 

The  ■  f  afflicted  "  or  "  poor ' '  is  the  prophetic  desig- 
nation for  God's  people  in  exile.  To  these,  the  prophet 
brings  the  news  of  their  release  and  restoration.  This 
means  their  pardon,  their  return  to  their  relation  with 
Jahwe  as  his  people,  their  future  blessedness  and  pros- 
perity, Following  this  announcement  the  prophet  goes 
on  and  describes  the  blessedness  of  the  future  in  ex^ 


Quotations  by  Jesus  79 

ternal  terms,  painting  a  graphic  picture  of  a  united 
Israel  in  Zion. 

Christ's  Use  of  the  Prophecy 

It  is  not  without  fitness  that  the  third  Evangelist  has 
placed  this  passage  at  the  beginning  of  his  story  of 
Jesus'  ministry,  as  an  epitome  of  it;  although,  as  we 
have  seen,  the  historical  occasion  was  later.  Jesus 
came  to  Nazareth  where  he  had  been  brought  up,  and, 
as  his  custom  was,  entered  into  the  synagogue  on  the 
Sabbath.  Early  in  his  ministry  he  took  his  place  in 
the  synagogue  as  a  teacher.  He  began  his  ministry  as 
a  Jew,  among  his  own  people.  This  incident  represents 
him  thus.  The  custom  was  to  read  the  first  lesson  from 
the  law,  which  occupied  the  first  rank  among  the  Rab- 
bis, and  the  second  lesson  from  the  prophets.  Jesus  is 
apparently  represented  as  making  a  different  choice, 
which  he  might  possibly  do,  on  account  of  his  prefer- 
ence for  the  prophetic  books.  But  this  is  doubtless  a 
report  of  the  incident  recounted  long  after  its  occurrence 
and  we  cannot  press  such  details.  It  is  not  unlikely 
that  the  selection  from  the  law  had  been  read  and  that 
Jesus  was  selected  as  the  reader  of  the  second  lesson  for 
the  day.  For  this  reading  there  was  no  lectio  continua. 
A  choice  was  open,  and  this  was  often  left  to  the  reader. 
The  narrative  seems  to  represent  Jesus  as  making  the 
selection.  He  opens  the  book  and  reads  from  Isaiah 
lxi.,  "The  spirit  of  the  Iyord  Jahwe  is  upon  me, 
because  Jahwe  has  anointed  me  to  announce  good 
news  to  the  meek  :  he  has  sent  me  to  bind  up  the 
broken-hearted,  to  proclaim  to  the  captives  release, 
and  opening  to  the  bound  ;  to  proclaim  a  year  of  grace 
from  Jahwe."     Note  the  point  at  which  the  reading 


80  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

stops,  omitting  the  clause,  "a  day  of  vengeance  for 
our  God."  ■ 

The  narrative  goes  on,  ' '  and  he  folded  the  roll  and 
gave  it  back  to  the  attendant  and  sat  down;  and  the 
eyes  of  all  in  the  synagogue  were  fastened  on  him. 
And  he  began  to  say  unto  them,  To-day  hath  this 
Scripture  been  fulfilled  in  your  ears. ' '  That  Jesus  said 
more  than  this  is  indicated  by  verse  22,  "  and  all  bare 
him  witness,  and  wondered  at  the  words  of  '  Grace ' 
which  proceeded  out  of  his  mouth."  Does  the  word 
refer  to  grace  of  manner  or  style,  or  is  it  to  be  taken  in 
the  theological  sense?  It  seems  probable,  in  view  of 
the  Pauline  character  of  the  teachings  attributed  to 
Jesus  in  the  narrative  which  follows,  that  it  means  the 
latter,  words  about  Grace,  concerning  the  Grace  of 
God.     This  is  the  general  use  of  xaPl?  by  Luke.3 

Following  this,  Jesus  is  represented  as  announcing, 
with  illustrative  citations  of  Old  Testament  examples, 
a  prophetic  universalism  with  regard  to  God's  Grace, 
which  plainly  indicates  the  passing  over  of  the  bless- 
ings of  the  Gospel  from  unworthy  Israel  to  the  recep- 
tive Gentiles.3     The  result  of  this  continued  exposition 

'The  Vulgate  adds  to  iv.,  19,  "et  diem  retributionis,"  but 
this  reading  is  not  supported. 

2On  this  question,  see  Luke's  use  of  the  word  in  Acts  xiv.,  3, 
and  xx.,  24. 

3  On  verses  23,  24,  which  seem  to  interrupt,  see  Wendt,  Lehre 
yesu,  vol.  i.,  p.  166,  sec.  34  b.  These  are  probably  genuine 
sayings  of  Jesus  but  do  not  belong  here.  They  receive  support 
as  to  their  genuineness  from  the  recently  discovered  "Sayings 
of  Jesus,"  Logion  vi.,  ii.,  30-35  :  "Jesus  saith,  A  prophet  is  not 
acceptable  in  his  own  country,  neither  does  a  physician  work 
cures  upon  them  that  know  him."  {See  Harnack,  Uber  die 
Jungst  Entdeckten  Spruche  Jesu,  and  Grenfell  and  Hunt,  Say- 
ings of  Our  Lord.) 


Quotations  by  Jesus  81 

is  the  tumultuous  wrath  of  his  hearers,  which  results  in 
his  forcible  ejection  from  synagogue  and  city. 

Let  us  consider  the  significance  of  this  incident  as 
represented  by  the  third  Evangelist.  While  it  is  going 
too  far  to  attribute  to  the  third  Gospel  a  defined  Paul- 
inism,  in  the  theological  sense,  there  is  one  point  at 
which  its  writer  is  in  thorough  sympathy  with  Paul. 
That  is,  in  his  Christian  universalism.  All  flesh  is  to 
see  the  salvation  of  God  (iii.,  6).  In  his  account  of  the 
sending  of  the  Seventy,  which  is  probably  identical 
with  the  sending  of  the  twelve  (compare  x.,  4,  with 
xxii.,  35,  the  latter  of  which  refers  only  to  the  Twelve), 
just  as  the  Twelve  corresponded  with  the  Twelve 
Tribes,  so  Luke's  Seventy  corresponds  to  the  reckoning 
of  the  nations  of  the  world,  on  the  basis  of  the  tenth 
chapter  of  Genesis.  The  Seventy  thus  symbolized  the 
sending  of  Christianty  to  the  whole  world.  Moreover 
we  find  Jewish-Christian  passages  of  the  first  Gospel 
apparently  omitted  by  Luke,  such  as  the  instruction  not 
to  go  to  the  Gentiles  or  Samaritans;  and  the  saying  of 
Jesus  that  he  was  not  sent  except  to  the  lost  sheep  of 
Israel  (Matthew  x.,  5,  xv.,  24). 

Here,  as  we  have  previously  suggested,  we  have  a 
reason  for  the  evidently  subjective  setting  of  the  inci- 
dent we  are  discussing.  It  is  a  significant  announce- 
ment of  the  Universalism  of  the  Gospel.  Verses  25-27 
are  the  commentary  on  Jesus'  preaching  on  Grace  (22), 
for  which  the  prophetic  quotation  (18,  19)  forms  the 
text.  According  to  the  narrative  we  have,  then,  Jesus' 
concern  is  not  primarily  with  a  teaching  about  Imnself. 
It  is  a  statement  of  the  universal  nature  and  application 
of  his  Gospel.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  it  was  not  because 
of  anything  he  said  regarding  his  own  person  that  he 
was  cast  out  of  synagogue  and  city ;  but  because  of  his 

6 


82  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

unwelcome  announcement  of  a  Gospel  of  God's  Grace, 
not  for  Israel  alone,  but  for  the  despised  Gentiles.  This 
is  the  unmistakable  representation  of  the  writer  of 
Iyuke.  Significant  is  the  omission  of  the  phrase  ' '  the 
day  of  vengeance  of  our  God."  For  this  phrase  in 
Isaiah  referred  to  God's  judgment  on  the  heathen 
who  had  oppressed  Israel.  Hence,  the  quotation  being 
used  here  as  a  text  especially  for  the  announcement 
of  salvation  for  the  heathen,  this  phrase  would  not  be 
fitting. 

It  is  clearly  evident  that  Jesus'  purpose  at  Nazareth 
was  not  primarily  to  make  an  announcement  concern- 
ing his  own  person.  To  be  sure  this  would  be  included. 
He  does  herald  a  new  dispensation,  which  he  is  con- 
scious of  inaugurating.  But  it  is  certain  that  he  is 
not,  as  Briggs  ( The  Messiah  of  the  Gospels,  page  237) 
infers,  concerned  to  announce  and  prove  his  Messiah- 
ship.  This  is  the  usual  explanation  of  the  passage,  but 
the  exegesis  which  comes  to  this  conclusion  treats 
only  of  the  section  iv.,  16-22,  and  ignores  its  signifi- 
cant commentary  in  verses  25-27.  It  discusses  the  text 
of  Jesus'  sermon  without  any  reference  to  the  sermon 
which  Jesus  preached  on  the  text.  It  is  evident  that 
Jesus'  hearers  would  infer  from  his  utterance  no  more 
than  that  he  applied  to  himself  the  words,  and  claimed 
as  his  the  mission  of  his  great  predecessor,  the  prophet 
of  the  Exile;  thus  claiming  himself  to  be  a  prophet 
sent  to  declare  God's  universal  Grace. 

Thus,  in  view  of  the  whole  tenor  of  this  section,  and 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  passage  quoted  from  Isaiah 
is  not  a  description  of  a  personal  Messiah,  it  is  evident 
that  in  his  use  of  prophecy  here,  Christ  is  not  concerned 
to  relate  an  Old  Testament  prediction  to  his  personal 
Messiahship.     It  is  even  too  much  to  say,  as  does  Pro- 


Quotations  by  Jesus  83 

fessor  Briggs,  that  M  in  this  he  definitely  claims  to  be 
the  gentle  preacher  described  in  the  great  prophecy  of 
the  Exile."  It  is  truer  to  say  that  he  takes  the  words 
which  the  great  prophet  used,  descriptive  of  his  own 
mission,  and  uses  them  as  applicable  in  a  description 
of  his  (Christ's)  mission,  as  the  greatest  of  prophets. 
Although  in  Isaiah  the  words  are  inclusive  of  a  larger 
truth,  they  yet  relate  to  a  miraculous  removal  of  earthly 
wants  and  sufferings,  and  to  an  establishment  of  ex- 
ternal salvation  and  prosperity.  Christ  transforms 
them  into  a  spiritual  sense,  with  little  or  no  regard  to 
their  literal  tenor;  and  uses  them  in  a  figurative  way  to 
express  God's  purpose  to  free  men  from  sin.  Their 
fulfilment  in  him  is  nothing  literal.  Here  as  else- 
where he  uses  prophecy  and  represents  it  as  fulfilled 
in  himself  because  it  consummates  the  larger  ideal 
of  the  Old  Testament  hope.  (Compare  Matthew  xi., 
4,  5,  Luke  vii.,  22.)  He  completes  the  prophetic 
work. 

Taken  as  a  whole,  then,  we  have  here  a  sermon  by 
Jesus,  his  subject  being  "  The  Boundless  Grace  of 
God."  He  takes  the  prophetic  words  descriptive  of  the 
Gospel  of  Grace  taken  from  Isaiah,  as  a  text.  The 
order  would  be: 

1 .  The  text ;  describing  the  nature  of  the  Grace  of 
God  (verses  18,  19). 

2.  This  is  the  substance  of  the  message  and  revela- 
tion of  Christ  (verse  21). 

3.  The  further  exposition  of  the  text.  God's  Grace 
is  in  its  nature  universal,  founded  on  men's  needs,  not 
on  their  prerogatives  (verse  22). 

4.  The  truth  of  this  is  illustrated  by  Old  Testament 
examples  which  indicate  the  boundlessness  and  uni- 
versality of  God's  Grace  (verses  25-27). 


84  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

The  Stone  of  Stumbling 

(Matthew  xxi.,  44) ;  Luke  xx.,  18  :  from  Isaiah  viii.,  14,  15. 
(Compare  Daniel  ii.,  34,  35  and  44,  45.) 

Hebrew — Isaiah  viii.,  14,  15  :  "  And  he  shall  be  for  a  sanctu- 
ary ;  but  for  a  stone  of  stumbling  and  for  a  rock  of  offence  to 
both  the  houses  of  Israel,  for  a  snare  and  for  a  trap  to  the  in- 
habitants of  Jerusalem.  And  many  among  them  shall  stumble, 
and  fall,  and  be  broken,  and  be  snared,  and  taken." 

Septuagint— "  He  shall  be  to  thee  as  a  sanctuary,  and  not  as 
of  a  stone  stumbling  shall  ye  encounter,  neither  as  the  falling 
of  a  rock.  But  the  houses  of  Jacob  in  a  snare  and  in  a  hollow 
lying  in  ambush  in  Jerusalem.  Wherefore  shall  be  weak 
among  them  many  and  they  shall  fall  and  be  crushed  and  men 
shall  draw  near  and  shall  wander  in  safety." 

Aramaic — Daniel  ii.,  34,  35,  44,  45:  "Thou  sawest  until  a 
stone  was  cut  out  without  hands,  which  smote  the  image 
upon  his  feet  that  were  of  iron  and  clay,  and  brake  them  in 
pieces.  Then  was  the  iron,  the  clay,  the  brass,  the  silver,  and 
the  gold,  broken  in  pieces  together,  and  became  like  the  chaff 
of  the  summer  threshing-floors  ;  and  the  wind  carried  them 
away,  that  no  place  was  found  for  them  :  and  the  stone  that 
smote  the  image  became  a  great  rock,  and  filled  the  whole 
earth.     .     .     . 

"  And  in  the  days  of  those  kings  shall  the  God  of  heaven  set 
up  a  kingdom  which  shall  never  be  destroyed,  nor  shall  the 
sovereignty  thereof  be  left  to  another  people  ;  but  it  shall  break 
in  pieces  and  consume  all  these  kingdoms  and  it  shall  stand 
forever.  Forasmuch  as  thou  sawest  that  a  stone  was  cut  out  of 
the  mountain  without  hands,  and  that  it  brake  in  pieces  the 
iron,  the  brasB,  the  clay,  the  silver,  and  the  gold;  the  great  God 
hath  made  known  to  the  king  what  shall  come  to  pass  here- 
after :  and  the  dream  is  certain  and  its  interpretation  sure." 

Septuagint — Theodotion  :  "Thou  sawest  until  a  stone  was 
detached  from  a  mountain  without  hands,  and  smote  the 
image  .  .  .  and  the  stone  which  smote  the  image  became 
a  great  mountain  and  smote  the  whole  earth. 

"...  Just  as  thou  sawest  that  the  stone  was  cut  from 
the  mountain     .     .     ." 

Matthew  xxi.,  44 — "(And  he  that  falleth  on  this  stone  shall 


Quotations  by  Jesus  85 

be  shattered  to  pieces  :  but  on  whomsoever  it  shall  fall,  it  will 
scatter  him  like  chaff.) " 

Luke  xx.,  18— "  Every  one  that  falleth  on  that  stone  shall  be 
broken  to  pieces  :  but  on  whomsoever  it  shall  fall,  it  will  scatter 
him  like  chaff." 

The  Septuagint  of  the  Isaiah  passage  is  altogether 
incorrectly  rendered.  The  different  manuscripts  vary, 
some  approaching  nearer  to  the  Hebrew  than  others. 
Matthew  xxi.,  44,  is  bracketed  by  W.  and  H.,  and 
omitted  by  Tischendorf.  Its  practical  identity  with  the 
Luke  passage,  and  the  manuscript  evidence,  make  it 
more  than  suspicious.  Luke  xx.,  18,  however,  has 
good  textual  support.  We  have  already  discussed  this 
incidentally,  in  connection  with  the  passage  Mark  xii., 
10,  11,  and  parallels,  quoted  from  Psalm  cxviii.,  22,  23. 
Luke  xx.,  18,  which  is  left  unsupported  by  the  setting 
aside  of  Matthew  xxi.,  44,  may  be  out  of  its  connection 
here,  and  may  have  been  inserted  in  this  connection 
because  of  the  verbal  likeness  of  the  word  "stone." 
However,  this  evidence  is  lessened  by  the  fact  that  the 
passage  Luke  xx.,  18,  itself  uses  this  word  with  rela- 
tion to  two  references.  It  may  be  the  writer's  own 
comment,  and  in  any  event,  is  not  without  suspicion. 
It  is  probable  that  the  figure  of  the  stone  in  the  first 
half,  "every  one  that  falleth  on  that  stone  shall  be 
broken  to  pieces,"  refers  to  the  figure  in  Isaiah  viii.,  14, 
15;  while  the  second  half,  "but  on  whomsoever  it  shall 
fall,  it  will  scatter  him  as  dust,"  refers  to  Daniel  ii.,  34. 
35,  and  44,  45.  There  is  no  antithesis  in  the  intended 
result.     This  applies  only  to  the  method  of  destruction. 

There  seems  to  be  a  threefold  play  on  the  word 
11  stone."  In  Luke  xx.,  17,  it  is  used  in  reference  to 
the  M  corner-stone  "  of  Psalm  cxviii.,  22,  23.  In  Luke 
xx.,   18,  it  refers,  first,  to  the  stone  of  stumbling  in 


86  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

Isaiah  viii.,  14,  15;  and,  second,  to  the  stone  which 
1 '  brake  in  pieces ' '  the  image,  and  caused  it  to  be  like 
the  "  chaff  of  the  summer  threshing-floor."  The  term 
ninroo  in  the  first  half  of  I,uke  xx.,  18,  might  refer 
to  the  stone  in  Daniel  as  well  as  in  Isaiah,  in  the  sense, 
not  of  stumbling  upon,  but  of  coming  into  collision 
with.  It  is,  in  any  case,  difficult  to  establish  any  clear, 
concise,  and  direct  reference.  The  terminology  and 
the  figure,  however,  do  seem  to  establish  some  connec- 
tion with  the  Old  Testament  passages.  The  stone  of 
stumbling  was  doubtless  a  common  figure.  {See  Jere- 
miah vi.,  21.)  We  shall  best  see  what  Christ's  refer- 
ence may  have  been  by  an  interpretation  of  the  saying 
in  I^uke  xx.,  18. 

In  the  section  containing  Isaiah  viii.,  14,  15,  the 
prophet  is  appealing  to  the  people.  He  has  sketched 
the  evils  which  are  to  fall  on  Judah  and  Israel  through 
the  coming  of  the  Assyrians  at  the  call  of  Ahaz.  Con- 
federacies and  alliances  with  the  nations  are  no  real 
source  of  strength.  God  alone  is  this.  Neither  should 
they  fear  Rezin  and  Pekah;  God  should  be  the  object 
of  their  fear.  "  Say  ye  not,  a  conspiracy,  concerning 
all  whereof  this  people  say,  a  conspiracy;  neither  fear 
ye  their  fear,  nor  be  in  dread  thereof.  Jahwe  of  Hosts, 
him  shall  ye  sanctify;  and  let  Him  be  your  fear,  and 
let  him  be  your  dread."  Then  the  prophet  goes  on  to 
describe  the  twofold  attitude  of  God  towards  men;  ac- 
cording as  they  seek  and  honor,  or  neglect  and  reject 
him.  As  Prof.  G.  A.  Smith  puts  it,  ' '  God  is  the  one 
great  fact  of  life,  but  what  a  double-edged  fact!  "  He 
is  "  a  sanctuary  "  to  all  who  put  their  trust  in  him,  but 
a  ' '  stone  of  stumbling  ' '  and  a  ' '  rock  of  offence ' '  to 
both  houses  of  Israel;  a  snare  and  a  trap  to  the  inhabi- 
tants of  Jerusalem.     In  consequence  of  their  lack  of 


Quotations  by  Jesus  $7 

trust,  ''many  of  them  shall  stumble  and  fall  and  be 
broken  and  be  snared  and  taken."  A  similar  figure  is 
used  in  Jeremiah  vi.,  21,  and  Kzekiel  iii.,  20.  In  the 
first  half  of  Luke  xx.,  18,  Jesus  is  represented  as  apply- 
ing this  figure  to  himself.  The  idea  is  the  same  as  in 
Matthew  xi.,  6,  "  blessed  is  he,  whosoever  shall  find 
none  occasion  of  stumbling  in  me."  Again  in  Mat- 
thew xiii.,  57,  they  were  "offended"  or  "caused  to 
stumble"  in  him,  says  the  Evangelist,  they  rejected 
him  without  sufficient  cause. 

Turning  to  the  passage,  Daniel  ii.,  34,  35,  and  44,  45, 
we  find  the  reference  is  to  a  stone,  mysterious  in  its 
origin,  which  smote  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth  and 
broke  them  in  pieces.  In  Daniel  vii.,  14  and  27,  and 
chapter  ii.,  44,  this  conquering  kingdom  is  that  of  the 
"Son  of  Man";  of  "the  people  of  the  saints  of  the  Most 
High ' ' ;  and  of  ' '  the  God  of  Heaven. ' '  Jesus  is  repre- 
sented as  also  borrowing  this  figure  and  applying  it  to 
the  relation  of  men  to  himself. 

There  is  no  actual  identity  between  Luke  xx.,  18, 
and  the  Old  Testament  passages  referred  to.  Jesus 
merety  borrows  the  figure  (which  the  prophet  applied 
to  God),  and  under  it  sets  forth  the  result  to  those  who, 
instead  of  looking  to  him  in  earnest  desire  for  truth, 
stand  off  in  captious  criticism,  close  their  eyes  to  his 
truth,  to  his  personal  significance,  and  thus  find  in 
him,  not  a  stone  of  foundation,  but  a  stone  to  stumble 
over.  But  there  is  another  class  on  whom  his  judg- 
ment falls,  because  of  their  actual  sins.  For  these  he 
borrows  the  figure  of  Daniel,  and  declares  a  like  de- 
struction for  them.  He  sees  before  him  those  who 
stand  in  both  these  attitudes  to  him;  and  he  utters  this 
solemn  warning  to  these  who  oppose  him,  his  teaching, 
and  his  kingdom,  both  by  outspoken  opposition,  and 


88  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

by  the  moral  opposition  of  their  judgment-deserving 
lives.  Every  one  that  falleth  on  this  stone  shall  suffer 
loss.  Like  loss  shall  come  to  those  on  whom  this  stone 
falls  in  judgment.  Whoever  comes  into  hostile  colli- 
sion with  him,  either  as  assailer  or  assailed,  will  suffer 
destruction.  Christ  does  not  use  the  figures  with  re- 
gard to  their  special  use  in  the  Old  Testament.  He 
merely  borrows  figures  which  are  both  fitting  and 
rhetorically  striking. 

Reckoned  with  Transgressors 

Luke  xxii.,  37  :  from  Isaiah  liii. ,  12. 

Hebrew — Isaiah  liii.,  12  :  "  Therefore  will  I  divide  him  a 
share  with  the  great,  and  with  the  strong  shall  he  share  spoil ; 
because  he  poured  out  his  soul  unto  death,  and  with  trangres- 
sors  he  was  numbered,  and  (in  that)  he  bore  the  sin  of  many  and 
interposed  for  the  transgressors." 

Septuagint — "Therefore  he  shall  inherit  much,  and  of  the 
strong  he  will  divide  spoil  ;  because  his  soul  was  given  up  to 
death,  and  among  the  trausgressors  he  was  reckoned,  and  he 
bore  the  sins  of  many  and  on  account  of  their  sins  he  was  given 
up." 

Luke  xxii.,  37 — "  For  I  say  unto  you,  that  this  which  is  writ- 
ten must  be  accomplished  in  me,  And  he  was  reckoned  with 
the  transgressors  ;  for  that  which  coucerneth  me  cometh  to  an 
end." 

With  reference  to  other  clauses  in  the  passage  the 
Segtuagint  rendering  is  incorrect.  Luke  uses  the  terms 
of  the  Septuagint,  but  gives  the  sense  of  the  Hebrew. 
This  would  indicate  an  Aramaic  original  as  the  source 
of  the  quotation.  This  section,  Luke  xxii.,  35-38,  is  a 
fragment  peculiar  to  Luke.  It  occurs  in  connection 
with  the  Supper,  and  follows  directly  after  Christ's  pre- 
diction of  Peter's  denial.  It  seems  out  of  connection 
here.  In  any  case,  we  have  not  a  direct,  continued 
discourse,   although  these  words  may  all  have  been 


Quotations  by  Jesus  89 

spoken  during  the  last  meal.  Is  this  a  genuine  saying  ? 
Verses  36  and  38  naturally  connect  and  this  looks  like 
an  interruption,  although  of  course  it  may  be  paren- 
thetical. Mark  xv.,  28,  which  is  now  omitted  by  all 
received  texts,  reads  after  giving  in  xv.,  27,  the  ac- 
count of  the  crucifixion  of  the  two  robbers  with  Christ, 
'  ■  and  the  scripture  was  fulfilled,  which  saith,  And  he 
was  reckoned  with  transgressors."  This  was  un- 
doubtedly an  addition  by  a  later  copyist.  Our  passage 
in  Luke  may  be  a  similar  insertion. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  early  Christian  writers 
were  under  a  special  necessity  to  represent  Christ's 
death  in  conformity  to  prophecy.  The  Messiah's  death 
constituted  the  great  difficulty  and  was  at  first  a 
"stumbling  block"  in  the  apologetic  of  the  early 
Church.  Hence  there  was  more  need  for  conforming 
it  to  prophecy.  For  example,  in  Mark  x.,  33,  34 
(Matthew  xx.,  18,  19,  Luke  xviii.,  31-33),  where  Jesus 
announces  that  he  goes  to  his  fate  at  Jerusalem,  Luke 
alone  has,  "  Behold  we  go  up  to  Jerusalem,  and  all  the 
things  that  are  written  by  the  prophets  shall  be  accom- 
plished unto  the  Son  of  Man  .  .  ."  (Compare  also 
Luke  xxiv.,  44-46,  Luke  xiii.,  33,  both  peculiar  to 
Luke.)  Hence  we  can  see  a  dogmatic  purpose  for  the 
insertion  of  this  passage  as  an  explanation  of  after  oc- 
currences. {See  Mark  xiv.,  49,  for  such  an  instance.) 
It  looks  as  though  some  hand  had  been  at  work  on  this 
Gospel  in  this  dogmatic  interest.  There  are  instances 
in  this  Gospel  of  "reading-back."  That  is  to  say, 
prophecies  and  other  sayings  are  moulded  by  the  later 
facts.     Especially  is  this  true  in  the  Infancy  story. 

On  the  other  hand,  its  appearance  in  Luke  alone  may 
be  accounted  for  on  the  supposition  that  Luke  and 
Matthew  had  different  editions  of  the  Logia,  for  it  is 


90  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

always  hard  to  see  what  would  induce  the  writer  of  the 
first  Gospel  to  leave  out  an  Old  Testament  reference, 
especially  of  a  ' '  fulfilling ' '  character.  Moreover,  the 
section  of  Isaiah  from  which  this  is  taken  was  doubt- 
less a  familiar  one  to  Jesus.  The  addition  of  Mark  xv. , 
28,  might  indicate  the  earlier  presence  of  this  passage  in 
Luke. 

But  perhaps  we  shall  form  a  more  decided  opinion  on 
the  grounds  of  inherent  probability;  that  is,  by  seeking 
to  ascertain  what  would  be  the  content  of  the  saying  on 
Jesus'  lips.  Let  us  look  at  the  passage  quoted.  Some 
commentators  interpret  Isaiah  liii.,  12,  as  referring  to 
the  prophet  himself;  the  majority,  however,  consider 
the  prophet  as  referring  to  the  "  Servant  of  Jahwe," 
who,  himself  righteous,  wins  righteousness  for  many 
and  bears  their  iniquities  (liii.,  11).  The  Servant  of 
Jahwe  (the  righteous  kernel  of  Israel)  refers  to  the 
godly  among  the  Babylonian  exiles,  who,  though  right- 
eous themselves,  are  yet  treated,  like  their  unrighteous 
brethren,  as  transgressors.  The  Servant's  suffering  is 
vicarious.  And  because  of  this,  it  is  his  very  humility 
that  elevates  him,  for  his  service  makes  him  the  highest 
among  the  moral  forces  of  life:  "  Therefore  do  I  divide 
him  a  share  with  the  great,  and  with  the  strong  will  he 
share  spoil;  because  he  poured  out  his  soul  unto  death, 
and  with  transgressors  he  was  numbered,  in  that  he 
bare  the  sin  of  many  and  interposed  for  the  transgres- 
sors." The  significance  of  the  Servant  lies  in  his 
vicarious  and  intercessory  attitude.  He  thus  becomes 
the  Saviour  of  God's  people.  This  is  the  thought  of 
the  whole  chapter.  All  this  is  represented  as  by  God's 
own  decree.  It  accords  with  the  general  prophetic  idea 
of  the  saving  remnant. 

That  Jesus  is  not  giving  this  quotation  as  having 


Quotations  by  Jesus  91 

been  said  of  himself  is  evident  from  his  own  words.  He 
does  not  say  that  the  words  written  "concerning  him  " 
were  to  be  fulfilled.  He  says  the  words  written  were 
exemplified  in  him.  The  expression  might  indicate 
specifically  that  the  words  were  originally  spoken  of 
some  one  else.  Jesus  means  here,  "the  course  of  my 
life  (what  concerns  me)  hath  or  cometh  to  an  end." 
(So  Mark  iii.,  26.)  Hence,  textually  and  exegetically, 
anything  like  direct  reference  to  Christ  is  excluded  by 
the  form  of  expression  attributed  to  Christ.  There  is 
a  question  which  frequently  arises  when  the  question 
of  literalness  in  Christ's  quotations  comes  up.  It  was 
a  question  which  troubled  the  Manicheans.  It  is  this: 
If  Christ  regarded  the  passage  as  having  direct  refer- 
ence to  him,  either  literally  or  typically,  why  did  he  not 
quote  the  whole  passage  ?  The  question  here  is  deter- 
mined largely  on  the  significance  ofrsXeffdrjvai.  While 
we  shall  treat  this  at  length  in  another  chapter,  we  may 
suggest  here  that  a  comparison  of  the  places  where  it 
is  used  shows  that  at  least  there  are  cases  where  no- 
thing like  direct,  precise,  literal  fulfilment  can  possibly 
be  meant. 

Briggs  (Messianic  Prophecy,  page  362)  sees  in  the  sin- 
bearing  Servant  of  Isaiah  liii.  an  individual  prophet, 
and  thus  seems  to  find  it  easy  to  make  a  very  literal  ap- 
plication to  Jesus  Christ.     He  says  (page  363) : 

"  The  prophet  finally  represents  that  this  suffering  has  been 
in  order  to  accomplish  a  divine  plan  of  redemption.  He  suffers 
in  obedience  to  the  divine  appointment.  He  offers  a  trespass- 
offering  for  the  sins  of  the  people,  in  order  to  purchase  their 
redemption  thereby.  The  trespass-offering  has  as  its  idea  the 
payment  of  a  fine  in  compensation  for  neglected  duties  and 
breaches  of  the  divine  law.  His  death  is  such  a  substitution 
and  compensation  for  sin.  When  this  has  been  accomplished, 
the  condition   of  humiliation  has  come  to  an   end,   and  the 


92  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

exaltation  of  the  servant  begins.  There  is  no  explicit  mention 
of  a  resurrectio?i,  but  this  is  implicitly  involved,  for  he  who 
has  died  a  martyr's  death  must  rise  from  the  dead  in  order  to 
receive  the  rewards  of  his  service.  The  rewards  are  success  in 
his  ministry,  the  enjoyment  of  the  spoils  of  his  victory,  and  ex- 
altation to  great  honor  as  the  redeemer.  This  prophecy  of  the 
servant  who  dies  and  rises  from  the  grave,  finds  its  only  fulfil- 
ment in  the  death  of  fesus  Christ,  and  in  his  resurrection  and 
exaltation  to  his  heavenly  throne."  ' 

Again  Professor  Briggs  says  {The  Messiah  of  the  Gos- 
pels, page  332),  after  speaking  of  the  great  Sufferer  of 
the  exilic  Psalms:  "He  is  the  same  as  the  suffering 
Servant  of  the  great  prophet  of  the  Exile,  and.  their 
combined,  representations  portray  to  us  the  passion  of 
our  Saviour  with  such  an  intensity  that  they  exceed  the 
historical  narratives  of  the  Gospels  in  coloring  and  in 
realistic  effect."  In  a  similar  vein,  Delitzsch,  with  ref- 
erence to  the  passage  we  are  discussing,  says,  "  Kvery 
word,  here  is,  as  it  were,  written  under  the  Cross  on 
Golgotha."  Frankly,  I  say  I  do  not  believe  it.  Thus 
to  put  into  the  words  of  the  prophet  a  prediction  of  the 
death  and  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  is  an  exegesis 
excusable  in  Philo  and  the  Apostles,  but  not  in  a 
nineteenth-century  critic.     To  sustain  such  a  literal 

1  As  to  the  matter  of  a  belief  in  the  resurrection  in  the  Old 
Testament,  we  refer  the  reader  to  the  various  discussions  on  the 
question.  Of  course  the  generally  accepted  view  of  modern 
scholars  is  that  there  is  practically  nothing  of  a  belief  in  immor- 
tality in  the  Old  Testament.  Said  George  Adam  Smith,  in  the 
Lyman  Beecher  Course  at  Yale  University,  in  1899,  "For  the 
most  part  the  Old  Testament  shows  an  amazing  indifference  to 
the  subject,"  and  his  conclusion  is  that  we  find  little  but  lurid 
flashes  of  hope  for  immortality.  I  quote  from  my  own  review 
of  Professor  Smith's  lectures  in  the  Congregationalist  of  April 
27,  1899.  This  fact  alone  lends  improbability  to  Professor 
Briggs's  interpretation. 


Quotations  by  Jesus  93 

interpretation  requires  that  we  consider  the  prophet  as  a 
mere  unconscious  mouthpiece.  That  the  early  Church 
had  some  such  conception  there  is,  of  course,  no  doubt. 
Such  was  the  conception  of  the  copyist  who  inserted 
Mark  xv.,  28.  But  if  we  look  aside  from  the  mechani- 
cal Messianic  application  of  the  Evangelist  and  look  for 
the  natural  meaning  it  would  be  this  : 

In  the  previous  verse  (36)  Jesus  intimates  that  his 
disciples  must  soon  be  left  to  rely  on  themselves  and 
that  they  are  to  meet  deadly  hostility.  (See  John  xv, , 
18-21.)  He  is  here  concerned,  not  to  set  forth  anything 
in  relation  to  himself,  but  with  relation  to  his  disciples. 
Hence,  if  there  is  any  analogy  between  this  passage 
and  the  prophetic  reference  to  the  servant  of  Jahwe,  it 
might  well  be  between  the  disciples  and  the  servant. 
Jesus  says:  "The  world  will  treat  you  no  better  than  it 
does  me,  and  in  me  must  be  accomplished  (to  me  is  ap- 
plicable), in  the  nature  of  the  case,  the  word  which 
Isaiah  spoke  when  he  said,  '  He  was  reckoned  with 
transgressors,'  for  I  am  about  to  be  treated  as  an  evil- 
doer. If  then  they  thus  treat  the  leader,  so  will 
they  treat  the  followers.  Be  ready  for  this,  for  my 
course  of  life  reaches  its  culmination  in  this  approach- 
ing event,  my  apprehension  as  a  law-breaker,  and  my 
death."  L,et  it  be  especially  noted  that  all  through 
this  passage  and  in  its  context,  the  concern  of  Jesus  is 
not  for  himself ;  he  is  not  setting  forth  himself ;  he  is 
speaking  of  the  disciples. 

Looked  at  naturally,  then,  in  his  use  of  the  quotation 
from  Isaiah,  Jesus  merely  borrowed  a  figure.  He 
used  this  just  as  we  might  use  any  proverb  or  familiar 
quotation,  equally  applicable  in  a  thousand  different 
ways. 

It  is  quite  likely  that  the  recorder  interpreted  it 


94  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

differently.  We  need,  throughout  our  whole  discussion, 
to  keep  in  mind  the  bias  under  which  the  Gospel  writers 
and  editors  labored.  And  yet  the  Greek  verb  here  is 
one  which  has  for  its  general  Aramaic  equivalent  a 
word  seldom  if  ever  used  for  "  fulfilment  "  in  the  sense 
of  the  coming  to  pass  of  a  prediction.  We  should  not 
care  to  rest  much  on  this,  however,  for  there  was  a 
wide  difference  between  Christ's  use  of  certain  words 
and  the  later  interpretations  of  the  recorders  of  his 
words. 

God  the  Teacher 

John  vi.,  45:  from  Isaiah  liv.,  13. 

Hebrew — Isaiah  liv.,  13:  "And  all  thy  sons  (shall  be)  dis- 
ciples (taught)  of  Jahwe,  and  great  (shall  be)  the  peace  of  thy 
sons." 

Septuagint — "And  all  thy  sons  taught  of  God,  and  in  great 
peace  thy  children  (shall  be)." 

John  vi.,  45—"  It  is  written  in  the  prophets,  And  they  shall 
all  be  taught  of  God.  Every  one  that  hath  heard  from  the 
Father,  and  hath  learned,  cometh  unto  me." 

The  Septuagint  renders  the  Hebrew  except  that  it 
translates  Jahwe  :  deov  ;  and  it  connects  this  with  what 
goes  before,  whereas  the  Hebrew  begins  a  new  sen- 
tence. John  vi.,  45,  rests  on  the  Septuagint  in  its  use 
of  the  words,  but  the  citation  is  a  free  one,  altered  to  fit 
the  manner  of  discourse.  The  freeness  of  the  citation  is 
indicated  by  the  "it  is  written  in  the  prophets,"  referring 
to  the  prophets  in  general  and  not  to  any  specific  pro- 
phet. Jeremiah  xxxi.,  33,  34,  conveys  a  similar  teach- 
ing. So  Joel  ii.,  28-32,  and  iii.,  1,2.  So  Micah  iv., 
1-6.  It  is  a  quotation  of  the  substance,  and  is  really 
not  cited  as  a  quotation  but  stated  as  a  prophetic  teach- 
ing. The  use  of  the  prophecy  here  is  somewhat  similar 
to  that  of  Isaiah  lxi.,  1,  2,  quoted  in  L,uke  iv.,  18,  19, 


Quotations  by  Jesus  95 

in  so  far  as  it  is  an  application  of  the  Old  Testament 
description  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  as  proclaimed  by- 
Christ. 

In  Isaiah  this  is  in  one  of  three  addresses  contained 
in  chapters  liv.,  lv.,  and  lvi.,  1-8,  which  were  delivered 
just  before  the  return  from  exile.  Chapter  liv.  is  de- 
scribing Israel  in  its  ideal  future,  and  after  speaking  of 
Zion's  external  beauty  the  writer  turns,  in  verse  13, 
to  describe  her  righteousness,  resting  on  a  restoration 
of  her  true  relation  with  Jahwe.  He  represents  Israel 
as  being  in  such  close  and  spiritual  relation  with  Jahwe 
that  she  shall  be,  not  man-taught  any  longer,  but  God- 
taught.  Jesus'  use  of  the  prophecy  is  an  instance  of 
his  abilit3%  so  far  above  the  teachers  of  his  time,  to 
select  such  Old  Testament  sayings  as  were  in  spirit  at- 
testations of  his  own  teachings,  and  it  is  in  part  the 
fact  that  he  is  represented  as  doing  so  here  that  leads 
us  to  accept  the  quotation  as  made  by  him.  While 
there  is  no  doubt  that  the  writer  of  the  fourth  Gospel, 
in  chapter  vi.,  as  elsewhere,  is  setting  forth  a  theologi- 
cal conception,  which  in  the  exact  form  given  is  the 
Evangelist's  own  and  not  Christ's,  we  yet  find  the 
Saviour's  own  teaching  concerning  himself.  The  idea 
of  verses  44  and  45  is  that  without  the  divine  grace  and 
its  drawing  power  no  man  can  come  through  Christ 
to  God.  A  divine  enlightening  of  human  faculties 
is  necessary.  The  inner  ear  must  hear  God's  voice. 
Faith  is  influenced  by  God.  It  was  just  this  that  his 
hearers,  according  to  John's  account,  lacked.  This 
teaching  is  not  unlike,  in  substance,  the  teaching  in  the 
Synoptists,  in  which  the  receptiveness  and  unreceptive- 
ness  of  men  is  similarly  grounded.  Similar  teaching  is 
found  in  Mark  x.,  27,  where  God's  power  enables  men 
to  enter  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven,  without  which 


96  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

power  it  would  be  impossible.  (Compare  also  Mark 
xiii.,  ii,  Iyuke  x.,  21,  Mark  iv.,  11,  vii.,  6,  %ff.) 

Nor  is  the  further  conception  here  set  forth,  of  Jesus' 
relation  to  God,  and  of  himself  as  the  means  of  approach 
of  men  to  God,  a  pure  subjective  conception  of  the 
writer.  These  ideas  are  found  in  the  Synoptic  teach- 
ing. In  Luke  x.,  22,  he  says:  "  All  this  has  been  de- 
livered unto  me  of  my  father:  and  no  one  knoweth  who 
the  Son  is,  save  the  Father;  and  who  the  Father  is, 
save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son  willeth  to 
reveal."  Indeed  this  is  the  fundamental  assumption 
of  Jesus'  teaching  regarding  himself.  The  condition  of 
membership  in  the  Kingdom  of  God,  according  to  the 
Synoptists,  depends  on  relation  to  him.  (On  this  see 
Wendt,  The  Teaching  of  Jesus,  English  Translation, 
vol.  ii.,  sec.  3,  chap,  vii.) 

Further,  while  it  is  true  that  the  writer  of  the  fourth 
Gospel  does  at  times  so  interweave  his  own  statements 
into  the  discourses  of  Jesus  as  to  make  it  difficult  to 
know  which  may  be  the  actual  words  of  Jesus,  and 
which  his  own  comments,  thus  making  it  possible  to 
regard  verse  45s  as  an  insertion  of  the  writer  to  refer  the 
origin  of  Jesus  to  Old  Testament  proof ;  the  connection 
of  44  and  45b,  while  broken  by  it,  may  as  well  be  at- 
tributed to  Christ  as  to  the  writer.  For  Christ  is  here 
talking  to  "  the  Jews"  who  murmur  against  him,  and 
on  some  such  occasion  he  may  well  have  used,  as  he  so 
frequently  did,  their  own  weapon  against  them.  More- 
over, the  very  unliteralness  of  the  quotation  leads  us  to 
decide  in  its  favor  as  authentic  in  Christ's  mouth.  It 
is  such  a  passage,  not  as  the  Evangelist  would  have 
chosen,  but  as  Christ  himself  would  choose,  not  because 
it  contained  any  possibility  of  literalizing,  but  because 
of  its  spiritual  affinity  with  the  truth  he  utters. 


Quotations  by  Jesus  97 

There  is  no  literal  correspondence.  In  Isaiah  liv., 
13,  there  is  no  suggestion  of  mediation.  God  himself 
is  represented  as  the  actual  teacher  of  men.  In  the 
Isaiah  passage  the  emphasis  is  on  "  all,"  while  Jesus 
lays  emphasis  on  "  taught  of  God  ";  quite  a  difference 
in  idea.  So,  whatever  may  be  the  Evangelist's  idea,  it 
does  not  seem  that  Christ  used  it  at  all  in  a  proof-sense. 
It  is  as  if  Christ  said,  "No  man  can  come  to  me,  except 
the  Father  draw  him.1  To  use  a  prophetic  word,  '  All 
men  are  taught  of  God*  and  all  who  receive  such 
teaching  into  open,  willing  hearts,  will  come  unto 
me,  for  in  me  they  will  see  the  messenger  of  God." 
Here  then  we  have  merely  a  use  of  prophetic  language, 
suitable  because  of  spiritual  affinity  with  the  thought 
and  mission  of  Christ.  Christ  is  not  quoting  the  pass- 
age so  much  as  a  statement  of  the  Messianic  times  as 
fulfilled  in  him  (although  this  idea  need  not  be  ex- 
cluded), but  rather  for  the  sake  of  expressing  the  gen- 
eral idea  that  God  is  the  teacher  of  men  and  that  those 
who  allowed  themselves  to  be  thus  taught  would  see 
in  Jesus  the  true  Messiah  of  God.  His  whole  pur- 
pose, then,  is  not  to  rest  his  Messiahship  on  the  Old 
Testament,  but  to  teach  the  truth  that  spiritual  en- 
lightenment is  the  free  gift  of  God,  open  to  all  men,  an 
enlightenment  which,  if  accepted,  would  enable  his 
hearers  to  recognize  him  and  his  truth.  He  quotes  the 
prophet's  words  not  as  a  prediction  but  as  a  statement 
of  this  truth:  "  God  is  the  great  teacher." 

An  Unknown  Reference 
John  vii.,  38—  "He  that  believeth  on  me,  as  the  scripture 
saith,  from  within  him  shall  flow  rivers  of  living  water." 

'The  refrain,  "and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day,"  is 
not  fitting,  and  is  in  any  case  an  addition  of  the  writer,  or  of  a 
later  editor. 


98  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

It  is  difficult  to  trace  the  source  of  this  quotation,  and 
indeed  it  would  not  be  considered  as  such  were  it  not 
for  the  words,  "  as  the  scripture  saith." 

It  has  been  variously  referred  to  such  passages  as 
Isaiah  xii.,  3,  xliii.,  20,  xliv.,  3,  lv.,  1,  lviii.,  11,  where 
the  figures  are  in  a  very  general  way  similar.  Or  to 
such  passages  as  Joel  iii.,  18,  Zechariah  xiv.,  8.  Some 
have  found  here  a  reference  to  the  smiting  of  the  rock 
in  Horeb,  Exodus  xvii.,  6,  Numbers  xx.,  11.  Other 
writers  have  concluded  that  it  refers  to  some  apocryphal 
or  lost  saying;  and  Kwald  suggests  the  fragment  of 
Proverbs  no  longer  extant,  as  its  source.  Toy  (Quota- 
tions in  the  New  Testament,  page  85)  refers  it  to  Pro- 
verbs xviii.,  4,  and  the  reader  is  referred  to  Toy's 
discussion  of  the  passage,  which  is  interesting,  but  by 
no  means  conclusive.  We  have  here  a  figurative  ex- 
pression similar  to  the  words  of  Jesus  to  the  woman  of 
Samaria  in  John  iv.,  10,  and  iv.,  14.  An  interesting 
question  arises  as  to  whether  the  two  accounts  in  the 
fourth  Gospel  rest  on  the  same  tradition,  with  words  of 
like  import  to  these. 

It  is  certain,  however,  that  we  have  nothing  here 
upon  which  to  form  an  estimate  of  the  use  of  the  Old 
Testament  citation,  and  indeed  it  is  by  no  means  neces- 
sary to  suppose  that  Christ  made  a  definite  reference. 
It  may  well  be,  as  some  have  suggested,  that  he  refers 
to  certain  passages  of  Scripture  which  have  been  read 
at  the  celebration  in  which  he  is  represented  as  partici- 
pating, and  takes  them  for  his  text,  referring  to  them 
in  a  general  way  and  adopting  the  figures  used.  We 
are  inclined  to  agree  with  Professor  Stevens  ( The  Jo- 
hannine  Theology)  who  says, ' '  the  preferable  view  is  that 
the  general  import  of  Scripture  respecting  the  fulness 
of  blessing  in  the  Messianic  age  is  here  indicated,  in 


Quotations  by  Jesus  99 

view,  especially,  of  such  passages  as  employ  the  figure 
of  a  stream  or  spring  in  describing  that  blessing."  In 
any  case  the  citation  bears  no  mark  of  literalness,  but 
is  a  free  rendering,  the  adoption  of  Scripture  language 
in  the  teaching  of  a  spiritual  truth. 

;  A  Skilful  Defence 

John  x.,  34  :  from  Psalm  lxxxii.,  6. 

Hebrew— Psalm  lxxxii.,  6 :  "I  said,  Ye  are  gods,  and  all  of 
you  sons  of  the  Most  High." 

Septuagint — "  I  said,  ye  are  gods,  and  all  sons  of  the  Most 
High." 

John  x.,  34 — "Jesus  answered  them,  Is  it  not  written  in  your 
law,  I  said,  Ye  are  gods?" 

The  Septuagint  quotes  the  Hebrew  identically  and 
John  reproduces  the  Septuagint  as  far  as  the  quotation 
goes.  The  method  of  use  of  the  Old  Testament  in  this 
instance  is  similar  to  that  found  in  other  passages  we 
have  treated.  It  is  an  argumentum  ad  hominem  ap- 
peal similar  to  that  in  Mark  x.,  6ff.y  and  Mark  xii.,  26. 
It  is  especially  like  Mark  ii. ,  25^.,  and  Matthew  xii.,  7. 
In  John  we  find  a  similar  use  in  vi.,  45,  viii.,  17,  v.,  17, 
and  vii.,  22  ff.  It  shows  us  that  intimacy  with  Scrip- 
ture which  sometimes  caused  astonishment  in  Jesus' 
hearers  (Mark  i.,  22,  and  especially  Luke  iv.,  22). 

Jesus,  here,  as  we  often  saw  in  the  Synoptic  accounts, 
uses  his  hearers'  own  weapons  on  themselves.  The  ex- 
pression ■ '  in  the  Law ' '  refers  to  the  Law  in  the  general 
sense  of  the  Old  Testament  Scripture,  as  in  vii.,  49. 
The  "  your  "  does  not  lay  emphasis  on  its  being  their 
law  and  not  his,  but  is  a  part  of  his  argumentum  ad 
hominem,  to  show  their  false  view  which  considered 
the  law  as  theirs  in  the  sense  that  it  is  on  their  side,  as 
unfavorable  to  him;  while  really  the  reverse  was  the 
actual  case. 


ioo  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

In  the  Psalm  quoted  from,  the  words  are  addressed  to 
Israel's  unrighteous  and  unjust  judges.  The  writer 
contrasts  their  lofty  office  with  their  unworthy  admin- 
istration of  it.  This  office  was  one  by  nature  so  exalted 
that  they,  as  representatives  of  God,  were  even  called 
"  gods."  "  Gods  "  is  applied  in  the  Old  Testament  to 
men,  and  only  with  certainty  to  judges.  (Compare 
Exodus  xxii.,  8  and  28.)  The  term  applied  in  Psalm 
xlv.,  7  (6),  to  a  Jewish  king  is  textually,  and  as  to 
meaning,  not  certain.  The  general  idea  is  that  in  their 
official  capacity  they  are  representatives  of  God. 

In  the  section  in  which  our  quotation  occurs,  the 
Jews  had  accused  Christ  of  blasphemy  because  he  had 
spoken  of  God  as  his  Father  and  declared  that  he  and 
the  Father  were  one  (x.,  29-33).  Jesus,  realizing  that 
in  this  charge  they  had  reference  to  the  Law,  turns  on 
them  with  the  question,  "  Is  it  not  written  in  the  Law, 
which  you  accept  and  on  which  you  base  your  charge 
— these  words,  '  I  said,  ye  are  gods '  unto  whom  the 
word  of  God  came  ?  If,  then,  he  could  call  them  gods 
(and  if  the  Scriptures  cannot  be  broken),  how  can  ye 
say  of  me,  whom  the  Father  has  sent  into  the  world  as 
his  messenger  and  representative,  Thou  blasphemeth; 
because  I  apply  to  myself,  not  the  term  '  God,'  but  be- 
cause I  said,  I  am  the  son  of  God? "  (Verses  34-36.) 
Wendt's  commentary  on  this  is  so  clear  and  complete 
that  we  cite  it: 

"In  the  relative  clauses,  in  which  Jesus  first  characterizes 
those  who  in  the  Old  Testament  (Ps.  Ixxxii.,  6)  are  called  gods, 
and  then  characterizes  Himself,  He  gives  at  once  the  reason 
why  the  Divine  name  was  ascribed  to  them,  and  why  He  can 
call  Himself  the  Son  of  God.  He  finds  the  explanation  of  that 
Old  Testament  designation  in  the  fact  that  the  men,  who  are 
there  mentioned,  had  become  partakers  of  the  Divine  word ; 
whether  it  was  that  He  referred  to  the  Divine  relation  in 


Quotations  by  Jesus  101 

general,  or  whether  He  referred  to  a  particular  commandment 
which  they  had  received  from  God.  We  cannot  perfectly 
determine  whether  this  explanation  was  a  usual  one  among  the 
scribes  in  the  time  of  Jesus.  It  was,  however,  self-evident  to 
Jesus  that,  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  the  Divine  name  could  be 
applied  to  men,  not  on  account  of  an  earthly  power  and  great- 
ness which  made  them  comparable  to  God,  but  only  on  account 
of  their  relationship  to  the  one  God,  and  on  account  of  their 
participation  in  what  is  truly  of  God.  To  this  basis  of  the  at- 
tribution of  the  Divine  title  to  those  addressed  in  the  words  of 
the  Psalm,  the  basis  which  He  gives  for  His  self-designation  as 
Son  of  God  stands  in  such  a  relationship  of  similarity  in  kind 
and  of  degree,  that  he  could  draw  a  just  conclusion  a  minori 
ad  majus.  For  the  being  sanctified,  that  is,  consecrated, 
the  pertaining  to  God,  and  the  being  sent  into  the  world  by 
God,  which  He  declares  of  Himself,  He  knew  as  resting  on  a 
revelation,  whose  medium  God  as  His  Father  had,  in  His 
fatherly  love,  made  Him,  but  whose  possession  He,  on  His  side, 
maintained  in  fidelity  and  manifested  by  His  works,  to  which 
He  was  called  among  the  Jews  (vers.  32,  37  /.)  Now,  if  the 
Scripture  could  already  describe  as  gods  those  Old  Testament 
receivers  of  the  revelation  of  God,  how  should  not  He  who, 
through  the  Divine  revelation  He  had  experienced,  felt  Himself 
in  fullest  measure  as  God-consecrated  and  sent  by  God  into  the 
world,  indicate  this  fellowship  with  God  through  the  name  of 
the  Son  of  God?  Also  by  His  designation  as  He  whom  the 
Father  has  sanctified,  Jesus  does  not  proclaim  for  Himself  such 
a  relation  to  God  as  essentially  distinguishes  Him  from  His 
disciples." 

Jesus  disclaims  any  denial  of  monotheism  in  his  ap- 
peal to  Scripture.  The  phrase  "  and  the  Scripture 
cannot  be  broken  "  is  not  categorical  but  hypothetical. 
(Holtzmann.)  The  meaning  is,  "  If  then  he  called 
them  gods  unto  whom  the  word  of  God  came,  and  if 
the  Scriptures  are  to  stand,  etc."  As  to  the  question 
whether  in  thus  assuming  the  title  Son  of  God,  Jesus 
does  so  in  a  human  or  divine  sense,  our  passage  seems 
to  show  that  it  is  in  the  human  sense.     Beyschlag  {New 


102  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

Testament  Theology,  vol.  i.,  page  244)  says  this  "is  a 
defence  which  would  be  meaningless  and  even  false,  if 
to  him  the  Son  of  God  were  not  a  human  being  in  the 
same  sense  as  those  '  gods.'  " 

We  have,  then,  here,  an  example  of  the  detailed  use 
of  Scripture  by  Jesus.  How  unlike  it  is  to  that  which 
a  later  exegesis  extracted  !  Jesus'  use  again  demon- 
strates his  marvellous  ability  to  choose  such  sayings  as 
were  attestations  of  his  teachings  and  which  brought 
out  clearly  the  one-sidedness  and  perverseness  of  the 
literalistic  and  piecemeal  method  which  prevailed  with 
his  opponents.  His  use  here  is  dialectical,  and  yet  by 
no  means  sophistical. 

A  Significant  Interpolation 

John  xiii.,  18:  from  Psalm  xli.,  10  (9.) 

Hebrew— Psalm  xli.,  10:  "Kven  my  familiar  friend  (the 
man  of  my  peace),  whom  I  trusted,  eater  of  my  bread,  hath  set 
his  heel  against  me." 

Septuagint— Psalm  xl.,  10:  "Even  the  man  of  my  peace,  in 
whom  I  hoped,  eater  of  my  bread,  hath  made  great  (his)  heel 
against  me." 

John  xiii.,  18 — "  But  that  the  scripture  may  be  fulfilled,  He 
that  eateth  my  bread  (or,  eats  bread  with  me)  hath  lifted  up  his 
heel  against  me." 

The  Septuagint  renders  the  Hebrew  exactly.  In- 
deed, as  frequently,  it  renders  it  so  slavishly  as  to 
change  the  real  expression  by  failing  to  render  it  in  the 
Greek  equivalent.  The  quotation  in  John  is  a  very 
free  rendering.  There  is  no  doubt,  however,  that  this 
passage  in  the  Psalm  is  the  passage  referred  to.  West- 
cott  {Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Gospels,  page  283) 
suggests  that  the  writer  was  familiar  with  the  Hebrew 
text.  This  may  be  so,  or  the  quotation  ma3'  be  from  a 
later  Greek  translation.  We  think  it  probable  that  it 
is  such  a  free  translation. 


Quotations  by  Jesus  103 

The  authorship  and  date  of  Psalm  xli.  cannot  be  defi- 
nitely settled.  That  it  belongs  to  a  persecution  period 
seems  certain.  Baethgen  and  others  refer  it  to  a  post- 
exilic  period,  when  Israel  was  the  object  of  a  hostile  at- 
titude on  the  part  of  surrounding  nations.  The  sufferer 
is  Israel  and  the  ' '  familiar  friend ' '  is  perhaps  Edoni. 
(Baethgen,  Handbuch  zuvi  A.  T.%  Die  Psalmen.)  While 
Messianic  in  the  larger  sense,  there  is  nothing  person- 
ally Messianic  in  it;  no  reference  to  a  future  person. 
The  question  as  to  whether  verse  19  implies  that  Jesus 
cites  this  in  order  to  turn  an  event  which  might  be 
a  cause  of  stumbling  to  the  disciples  into  a  means  of 
support ;  or  whether  he  is,  as  Weiss  thinks,  presenting 
a  proof  for  his  Messiah  ship,  does  not  alter  the  fact  that 
the  fourth  Evangelist  directly  and  literally  connects  a 
passage  from  the  Old  Testament  with  ' '  fulfilment ' '  in 
a  specific  event  of  Christ's  life. 

We  have  here  a  quotation  which  is  entirely  different 
from  any  of  those  we  have  been  discussing.  It  is  a 
purely  mechanical  literalism  which  connects  the  sup- 
posed individual  referred  to  in  the  Psalm  with  Jesus. 
Any  spiritual  connection  between  the  two  passages  it  is 
impossible  to  find.  Finding  thus  in  the  fourth  Gospel 
a  quotation  so  much  at  variance  in  every  way  with 
Christ's  method  and  grounds  in  quoting  Scripture,  we 
need  to  give  the  passage  most  thorough  consideration. 

This  verse  is  contained  in  those  sections  of  the  fourth 
Gospel  (chapters  xiii.-xvii.)  which  evidently  contain 
what  purport  to  be  a  series  of  addresses  by  Jesus  at  the 
Last  Supper.  The  account  throughout  is  full  of  breaks, 
both  in  historical  and  literary  continuity.  This  has 
given  rise  to  various  questions  and  to  as  many  con- 
jectures, in  an  effort  to  obtain  a  proper  order.  With 
this,  however,  we  are  not  concerned.     We  need  only  to 


104  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

recognize  that  the  section  is  not,  as  it  stands,  a  har- 
monious unity.  For  example,  note  that  while  xiv., 
31,  apparently  ends  the  meal,  xv.,  1,  continues  the  ad- 
dress and  we  have  still  another  conclusion  later.  The 
discourse  is  further  continued  to  chapter  xvii.,  and 
we  have  the  other  conclusion  in  xviii.,  i.1 

There  is  also  lack  of  unity  in  the  section  which  con- 
tains our  quotation.  A  merely  casual  reader  notices 
the  lack  of  connection  between  verse  20  and  that  which 
precedes.  The  opening  words,  "Verily,  verily,"  re- 
quire immediate  connection  with  something  preceding. 
Such  a  connection  and  a  unity  is  established  if  we  con- 
nect verse  20  with  verse  17,  and  the  preceding.  Thus 
verses  18  and  19  form  one  of  those  parenthetic  passages 
which  we  find  so  frequently  interrupting  the  connection 
throughout  the  fourth  Gospel.2 

While  we  may  not  accept  conclusions  such  as 
Wendt's,  as  to  the  double  nature  of  the  Gospel,  we  see 
that  it  does  contain  interruptions  which  do  not  seem  to 
belong  to  the  original  source  of  the  Gospel,  or  at  all 
events  to  the  original  words  of  Jesus. 

We  find  in  the  fourth  Gospel  a  very  evident  attempt 
to  make  it  clear  that  Jesus,  by  a  supernatural  know- 
ledge, knew  what  was  in  man  (ii.,  25),  and  that  espe- 
cially in  reference  to  Judas  the  Master  was  in  nowise 
deceived;  that  he  knew  from  the  very  beginning  that 
he  had  chosen  one  who  was  to  betray  him.  In  xiii. ,  10, 
the  clause  ' '  but  not  all "  is  to  except  Judas.     In  xv. , 

1  For  a  careful  and  thorough  discussion  of  this  question  the 
reader  is  referred  to  Spitta :  Zur  Geschickte  und  Litteratur  des 
Urchristentums,  page  168,  "Jesu  Abschiedsredeu." 

2 See  Wendt,  Lehre  Jesu,  Krster  Theil,  "Die  Evangelischen 
Quellenberichte  iiber  die  L,ehre  Jesu,"  page  221.  Also  Cone, 
Gospel  Criticism  and  Historical  Christianity,  page  249  ff. 


Quotations  by  Jesus  105 

2,  the  branch  that  beareth  not  fruit  probably  refers  to 
the  betrayer.  In  vi.,  64,  where  Jesus'  words  evidently 
refer  to  the  disciples  in  general  (verse  61)  who  mur- 
mured at  his  hard  saying,  they  are  given  a  most  unnat- 
ural application  to  Judas  by  this  explanation  of  the 
Evangelist,  "  For  Jesus  knew  from  the  beginning  who 
they  were  that  believed  not,  and  who  it  was  that  should 
betray  him."  In  vi.,  70,  71,  we  have  an  insertion 
where  Jesus  is  represented  as  saying,  "  Did  not  I  choose 
you,  the  twelve,  and  one  of  you  is  a  devil  ?  Now  he 
spake  of  Judas,  the  son  of  Simon  Iscariot,  for  he  it  was 
that  should  betray  him,  being  one  of  the  twelve."  This 
1 '  answer ' '  of  Jesus  has  no  connection  here,  and  is  en- 
tirely inappropriate  to  the  preceding  words  of  Peter, 
declaring  Jesus  as  the  Holy  One  of  God.  There  is  no 
connection  at  all  between  Peter's  declaration  and  this 
reputed  word  of  Jesus.  In  this  Last  Supper  (xvii.,  12) 
Jesus  is  represented  as  adding,  ' '  But  the  son  of  perdi- 
tion; that  the  Scripture  might  be  fulfilled."  This  has 
a  wholly  unnatural  sound.  The  writer  probably  refers 
to  Psalm  cix.,  8,  "  Let  another  take  his  office."  That 
this  is  an  insertion  in  the  course  of  Jesus'  prayer  is 
apparent.  It  is  a  parenthetical  modification  by  the 
writer.  We  see,  then,  throughout  the  fourth  Gospel, 
explanatory  references  to  Judas' s  betrayal,  all  of  which 
are  evidently  editorial  additions  or  insertions,  commen- 
taries on  Jesus'  words  in  the  light  of  events  which 
occurred  long  after  the  sayings  of  Jesus. 

Let  us  look  at  the  passage  we  are  discussing.  In 
this  quotation,  the  first  clause  of  the  verse  in  the 
Psalm,  "  in  whom  I  trusted,"  is  designedly  omitted,  in 
order  to  avoid  any  admission  that  Jesus  was  deceived 
in  Judas. 

The  accounts  of  the  betrayal,  both  in  the  Synoptists 


106  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

and  in  John,  have  difficulties.  With  relation  to  the  di- 
rect prophecy  that  one  of  the  twelve  was  to  betray  him 
these  accounts  render  as  follows: 

Matthew  xxvi.,  2\  ff.  "And  as  they  were  eating,  he  said, 
Verily  I  say  unto  you,  that  one  of  you  shall  betray  me.  And 
they  were  exceeding  sorrowful,  and  began  to  say  unto  him 
every  one,  Is  it  I,  Lord?  And  he  answered  and  said,  He  that 
dipped  his  hand  with  me  in  the  dish,  the  same  shall  betray  me. 
.  .  .  And  Judas,  who  betrayed  him,  answered  and  said,  Is  it 
I,  Rabbi?     He  saith  unto  him,  Thou  hast  said." 

The  first  intimation,  ' '  He  that  dipped,"  is  not  direct, 
but  the  final  one  to  Judas  does  appear  to  be  direct. 
This  is  at  variance  with  John  xiii.,  26^".,  where  verse 
29  precludes  it.  It  is  probable  that  Matt,  xxvi.,  25, 
containing  the  words  to  Judas,  is  from  a  later  tradition. 
Mark  did  not  originally  contain  it. 

The  account  in  Mark  xiv.,  18^.,  is  as  follows: 

"  And  as  they  sat  and  were  eating,  Jesus  said,  Verily  I  say 
unto  you,  One  of  you  shall  betray  me,  even  he  that  eateth  with 
me.  They  began  to  be  sorrowful,  and  to  say  unto  him  one  by 
one,  Is  it  I?  And  he  said  unto  them,  It  is  one  of  the  Twelve, 
he  that  dippeth  with  me  in  the  dish." 

This  contains  no  direct  intimation  of  Judas. 

In  Luke  xxii.,  21  ff.,  we  read  that  Jesus  said: 

"  But  behold,  the  hand  of  him  that  betray eth  me  is  with  me 
on  the  table.  .  .  .  And  they  began  to  question  among 
themselves,  which  of  them  it  was  that  should  do  this  thing." 

The  Synoptic  accounts  are  thus  in  substantial  agree- 
ment. The  fourth  Gospel  disagrees  with  them  entirely. 
John  xiii.,  25-27  represents  Jesus  as  conveying  to  John 
(so  generally  considered)  and  Peter  a  direct  intimation 


Quotations  by  Jesus  107 

that  Judas  is  to  betray  him,  but  (28,  29)  to  no  one  else. 
The  inherent  improbability  of  the  account  in  the  fourth 
Gospel,  as  well  as  the  agreement  of  the  Synoptic  ac- 
counts, leads  to  the  conclusion  that  that  in  the  fourth 
Gospel  has  been  worked  over.  This  account  of  the  de- 
signation to  Peter  and  John  probably  rests  on  a  later 
tradition.  It  was  used  by  the  writer,  or  editor,  of  the 
fourth  Gospel  in  the  interest  of  his  effort  to  show  that 
Jesus  was  not  deceived  in  Judas.  It  bears  the  same 
marks  of  improbability  as  all  those  editorial  comments 
which  we  have  previously  considered.  All  this  accords 
with  the  theological  purpose  of  the  Gospel.  It  is  a  part 
of  its  form;  of  its  scheme.     (Chapter  ii.,  verses  24,  25.) 

Seeing,  then,  that  the  Johannine  account  of  this 
whole  scene  is  beset  with  impossibilities,  and  that  it 
contains  later  insertions,  we  are  not  surprised  to  find 
what  we  have  previously  said  looks  on  the  face  of  it 
like  an  interpolation,  this  later  editorial  comment 
(chapter  xiii.,  verses  18,  19)  which  contains  our  quota- 
tion. The  fact  that  none  of  the  Synoptists  have  any- 
where anything  corresponding  to  this  quotation  is 
evidence  against  it.  Matthew  especially  would  not 
have  omitted  it. 

But  there  is  a  further  and  weightier  reason  for  ex- 
cluding verse  18  as  a  Logion  of  Jesus.  If  our  con- 
sideration thus  far  of  Jesus'  use  of  prophecy  has  shown 
us  anything,  it  has  shown  that  in  every  case  where 
Jesus  used  prophecy  there  is  an  affinity  of  spiritual 
truth  between  the  Old  Testament  passage  cited  and  the 
use  of  it  in  Jesus'  teaching.  This  is  true  in  those  pas- 
sages where,  according  to  some  authorities,  a  literal 
connection  has  been  found  possible.  The  spiritual  sig- 
nificance is  always  there.  But  here  we  have  a  method 
of   using   prophecy,    common  enough  to   the   fourth 


108  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

Gospel,  but  not  to  Jesus.  It  is  purely  literal  and  me- 
chanical, with  no  spiritual  significance  whatever.  It  is, 
moreover,  inserted  in  a  connection  where  Jesus'  teach- 
ing is  of  the  highest  spiritual  importance.  It  is  the 
selection  of  a  passage  which,  in  relation  to  its  context 
in  the  Psalm,  is  utterly  inapplicable  to  Jesus.  The 
Psalm  contains  complaints  of  the  writer  which  are 
purely  personal  to  himself  (typifying  the  nation,  prob- 
ably); and  if  any  part  of  it  is  applicable  to  Christ  the 
rest  must  be.  Yet  who  would  say  that  the  words, 
1 '  For  I  have  sinned  against  Thee, ' '  are  applicable  to 
Christ  ?  The  whole  Psalm  has  a  revengeful  spirit.  It 
is  thus  a  purely  mechanical  and  verbal  selection.  How 
unlike  the  method  of  Jesus  ! 

Wherever  we  find  the  apostolic  writers  led  into  alle- 
gorizing in  such  a  way  as  this,  it  is  generally  done  with 
reference  to  something  in  the  context  which  suggests 
to  their  minds  the  Old  Testament  passage.  In  the 
present  instance  we  find  this  suggestion  in  the  Synoptic 
account.  It  is  in  Mark  xiv.,  18,  "He  that  eateth  with 
me."  This  suggested  to  a  writer  living  later,  in  an  age 
which  felt  itself  forced  to  prove  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus 
by  a  hermeneutical  method  of  this  kind,  the  reference 
in  Psalm  xli. ,  10.  He  either  incorporated  this  into  the 
later  tradition  which  he  inserted  into  the  interpolation, 
verses  18  and  19;  or  else  made  a  marginal  reference 
which  afterwards  became  incorporated  into  the  text. 

A  Passage  which  Shows  how  Jesus  did  not  Use  Scripture 

John  xv.,  25 :  from  Psalm  lxix.,  5  (4.)  (Compare  Psalm  xxxv., 
19,  cix.,  3,  cxix.,  161.) 

Hebrew — Psalm  lxix.,  5  :  "  More  than  the  hairs  of  my  head 
are  they  that  hate  me  without  cause." 

Septuagint — Psalm  lxviii.,  5:  ".  .  .  they  that  hate  me 
undeservedly  (or,  without  cause)     .     .     ." 


Quotations  by  Jesus  109 

John  xv.,  25 — "  But  in  order  that  the  word  which  is  written 
in  their  law  should  be  fulfilled,  that,  They  hated  me  without  a 
cause." 

The  Septuagint  translates  the  Hebrew  literally.  John 
xv.,  25,  is  probably  adopted  from  the  Septuagint.  While 
it  is  uncertain  whether  this  citation  is  based  on  Psalm 
lxix.,  5,  or  xxxv.,  19,  the  sense  would  not  be  changed 
in  either  case,  for  in  both  Psalms  the  reference  is  to  the 
writer's  enemies.  The  expression  ''in  the  law"  refers 
to  the  Law  according  to  the  Jewish  usage,  meaning 
the  teachings  of  the  Old  Testament  as  a  whole.  If 
Jesus  cited  this,  his  use  would  be  similar  to  that  in 
Luke  xxii.,  37,  merely  the  adoption  of  a  scriptural 
phrase.  He  would  apply  the  experience  of  the  original 
writer  to  himself.  Both  were  unjustly  hated.  Any- 
thing like  a  literal,  or,  what  is  practically  the  same 
thing,  typical  application  would  be  grotesque.  It 
would  be  like  the  unnatural  application  which  we  have 
already  pointed  out  in  John  xiii.,  18.  For  if  we  take 
the  reference  in  Psalm  lxix.,  5  (4),  and  regard  the 
writer  as  literally  or  typically  representing  Christ,  then 
me  must  in  the  same  way  apply  the  verse  which  con- 
tinues, "  O  God,  Thou  knowest  my  foolishness ;  and 
my  sins  are  not  hid  from  Thee,"  as  typical  of  Christ. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  we  refer  it  to  Psalm  xxxv.,  19, 
then  we  have  a  selection,  made  to  typify  Christ,  out  of 
a  Psalm  which  is  full  of  a  revengeful  spirit,  and  we 
have  this  writer  typifying  Christ  while  he  says  ' '  Let 
their  way  be  dark  and  slippery  " ;  ' '  Let  destruction 
come  upon  him  unawares  " ;  ' '  Let  them  be  put  to  shame 
and  confounded  together  " ;  "  Let  them  be  clothed  with 
shame  and  dishonor."  No;  if  Jesus  chose  passages 
typical  of  himself,  he  did  not  seek  them  in  the  impreca- 
tory Psalms.     If  Jesus  used  such  a  quotation,  from  such 


no  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

a  source,  it  could  only  be  as  the  adoption  of  a  current 
phrase,  a  scriptural  designation,  in  this  case,  of  unjust 
treatment. 

But  a  careful  study  of  the  section  shows  us  clearly 
that  the  conception  of  the  writer  of  the  fourth  Gospel 
was  not  like  this.  He  makes  it  distinct  and  definite, 
' '  in  order  that ' '  the  word  written  in  their  law  should 
be  fulfilled,  meaning,  "  this  has  occurred  in  order  to 
fulfil. "  Weiss  recognizes  this  evident  meaning  of  the 
passage,  and  so  is  forced  to  assert  that  the  Evangelist 
puts  these  words  in  the  mouth  of  Jesus,  the  Messiah,  as 
proof  of  his  Messiahship.  (Weiss,  Biblical  Theology  of 
the  New  Testament.) 

Johnson  {Quotations  of  the  N.  T.  from  the  Old,  page 
245)  is  forced  even  further,  and  says:  "  The  quotation 
is  probably  from  Psalm  lxix.,  4,  which  we  have  found 
Messianic  in  so  many  other  passages,  the  Psalmist 
speaking  of  himself,  but  so  speaking  under  the  guidance 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  to  become  a  type  of  Christ,  since  the 
things  he  speaks  are  fulfilled  perfectly  in  Christ,  and 
only  imperfectly  in  himself"  This  is  a  case  of  reductio 
ad  absurdum,  for  in  this  instance,  as  we  have  seen,  this 
same  writer,  "a  type  of  Christ,"  writing  words  and 
descriptions  which  were  to  be  "  fulfilled  perfectly  in 
Christ,"  continues  the  words  in  which  he  is  typifying 
Christ,  "  O  God,  Thou  knowest  my  foolishness  ;  and 
my  sins  are  not  hid  from  Thee."  To  say  that  the 
writer,  in  one  half  of  his  utterance,  is  typical  of  Christ, 
and  in  the  half  which  continues  it,  is  not,  is  to  wrest 
the  Scripture  to  its  hurt.  Any  such  argument  falls  of 
its  own  weight. 

But  while  we  have  seen  that  any  such  use  of  Scrip- 
ture is  absolutely  foreign  to  Christ,  lacking  in  all  moral 
value,  it  is  by  no  means  foreign  to  early  Christian  ex- 


Quotations  by  Jesus  1 1 1 

egesis  and  interpretation.  It  was  the  prevailing  method 
at  the  time  of  the  writing  of  the  fourth  Gospel.  We 
find  it  all  through  this  Gospel.1 

This  passage  (xv.,  25)  clearly  interrupts  the  course 
of  the  discourse  and  looks  like  an  insertion.  The  nat- 
ural connection  is  between  verses  24  and  26.  This  is  a 
similar  kind  of  insertion  to  those  which  we  considered 
in  our  discussion  of  John  xiii.,  18.  It  is  an  inserted 
comment  of  the  writer.  If  we  should  put  verse  25  in 
parenthesis  (as  a  writer  inserting  his  own  comment 
would  do  to-day)  all  would  be  clear.  That  the  writer 
of  this  Gospel,  or  that  the  Gospel  in  its  present  form, 
does  pass  from  the  words  of  one  speaker  to  the  words 
of  another,  or  to  the  writer's  own  comments,  in  this 
loose  way,  we  have  evidence.  Note,  for  example,  chap- 
ter i.,  verses  6  to  8  and  verse  15,  which  are  evidently 
parenthetical.  In  chapter  iii.  there  is  a  transition  from 
the  words  of  Jesus  to  the  writer's  own  words,  begin- 
ning, probably,  with  verse  16.  There  is  another  similar 
transition  from  the  words  of  John  the  Baptist  to  those 
of  the  writer,  beginning  with  verse  31.2 

We  shall,  moreover,  notice  the  especial  category  to 
which  this  insertion  (xv.,  25)  belongs,  if  we  note  an 

1  For  a  discussion  of  this  feature  of  the  fourth  Gospel  the 
reader  is  referred  to  the  clear  presentation  by  Professor  G.  B. 
Stevens  in  the  Jo hannine  Theology  (Chapter  ii.,  "The  Relation 
of  John's  Theology  to  the  Old  Testament").  See  also  Cone's 
Gospel  Criticism  and  Historical  Christianity,  chapter  x.,  page 
309,  "The  Old  Testament  in  the  Gospels." 

2  For  a  consideration  of  this  peculiarity,  upon  which  Wendt 
in  large  part  bases  his  theory  of  the  composite  character  of  the 
Gospel,  the  reader  is  again  referred  to  the  discussion  in  Wendt's 
Lehre /esu,  Erster  Theil,  Vierter  Abschnitt,  "Das  Johannes- 
evangelium."  See  especially  chapter  ii.,  "Die  Uuterbriich- 
ungen,"  u.  s.  w.,  page  219. 


ii2  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

insertion  of  the  same  import  which  is  more  clearly 
shown,  by  the  context,  to  be  the  writer's  own  comment. 
This  is  in  xii.,  2fiff.y  where  the  writer  adds  the  words, 

"  that  the  word  of  Isaiah  the  prophet  might  be  fulfilled,  which 
he  spake, 

Lord,  who  hath  believed  our  report  ? 

And  to  whom  hath  the  arm  of  the  Lord  been  revealed  ? 

For  this  cause  they  could  not  believe,  for  that  Isaiah  said 
again, 

He  hath  blinded  their  eyes,  and  he  hardened  their  heart ; 

Lest  they  should  see  with  their  eyes,  and  perceive  with  their 
heart, 

And  should  turn, 

And  I  should  heal  them. 

"These  things  spake  Isaiah  because  he  saw  his  glory  ;  and  he 
spake  of  him." 

In  these  words  of  the  writer  we  have  clearly  presented 
his  conception  of  the  fulfilment  of  Old  Testament  pro- 
phecy in  Christ.  Note  the  opening  of  the  phrase,  ' '  in 
order  that  it  should  be  fulfilled."  This  is  identical 
with  our  passage.  Thus  it  is  evident  that  the  quota- 
tion in  xv.,  25,  is  an  explanatory  insertion  of  the 
writer.  As  to  whether  it  is  to  be  attributed  to  an  origi- 
nal or  a  later  compiler,  we  shall  decide  in  accordance 
with  whatever  our  theory  may  be  with  regard  to  the 
unity  of  the  Gospel  and  the  contemporaneity  of  its  vari- 
ous parts.  It  may  originally  have  been  a  marginal 
comment  which  slipped  into  the  text.  But  in  any  case, 
because  of  the  entire  absence  of  any  affinity  with 
Christ's  method  of  using  Scripture,  its  similarity  with 
other  editorial  comments,  added  to  the  textual  evidence, 
which  in  itself  is  weighty,  we  cannot  consider  this  as  a 
citation  of  Jesus. 


CHAPTER  III 

SOME)    CONCLUSIONS   WITH   REGARD  TO  THE)   SOURCES 
AND  TEXTS  OP  THE  QUOTATIONS 

IN  all,  we  have  discussed  twenty-one  quotations  from 
"The  Prophets"  by  Jesus.  Of  these,  Mark  ix., 
48,  bears  the  marks  of  an  editorial  addition.  John  xiii. , 
18,  and  xv.,  25,  give  similar  evidence;  and  John  vii., 
38,  has  no  traceable  source.  Not  including  these,  we 
have  seventeen  which  are  genuine  utterances  of  Jesus. 

Of  these,  fifteen  are  in  the  Synoptics,  as  follows: 

In  all  three  Synoptics,  seven. 

In  Mark  and  Matthew,  two. 

In  Matthew  and  Luke,  two. 

In  Matthew  alone,  one. 

In  Luke  alone,  three. 

Of  these,  nine  are  contained  in  both  Matthew  and 
Luke,  twelve  in  Luke,  twelve  in  Matthew,  nine  in 
Mark. 

The  Gospel  Sources 

Of  the  fifteen  citations  in  the  Synoptists,  nine  appear 
to  belong  to  the  Mark  source  as  follows: 

Mark  iv.,  32  (Matthew  xiii.,  32,  Luke  xiii.,  19). 
Mark  iv.,  12  (Matthew  xiii.,  14,  15,  Luke  viii.,  10). 
Mark  xi.,  17  (Matthew  xxi.,  13,  14,  Luke  xix.,  46), 

8 

"3 


ii4  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

although  the  original  form  of  the  passage  is  best  pre- 
served in  Matthew  and  L,uke. 

Mark  xii.,  2  (Matthew  xxi.,  33,  I^uke  xx.,  9). 

Mark  xii.,  10,  11  (Matthew  xxi.,  42,  L,uke  xx.,  17). 

Mark  xii.,  36,  37  (Matthew  xxii.,  44,  L,uke  xx.,  42). 

Mark  xiii.,  12  (Matthew  x.,  21,  L,uke  xii.,  53). 

Mark  vii.,  6,  7  (Matthew  xv.,  8,  9). 

Mark  xiv.,  27  (Matthew  xxvi.,  31). 

With  relation  to  Mark  iv.,  32,  and  parallels,  while 
Mark  seems  to  be  the  original  source,  it  is  likely  that 
this  was  also  in  the  Logia  of  both  Matthew  and  I^uke 
as  well.  Only  two  seem  to  have  the  Logia  as  the  origi- 
nal, namely,  Matthew  xi.,  10  (L,uke  vii.,  27)  and  Mat- 
thew xi.,  23  (L,ukex.,  15).  One  citation  (Matthew  ix., 
13,  and  xii.,  7)  is  peculiar  to  Matthew  and  would  indi- 
cate, either  that  it  was  only  in  Matthew's  Logia  or  in 
an  independent  source  of  the  first  Gospel.  Three  (L,uke 
iv.,  18,  19,  Iyuke  xx.,  18,  and  L,uke  xxii.,  37)  appear 
to  be  either  from  L,uke's  version  of  the  Logia  or  from 
an  independent  source. 

That  a  large  proportion  of  these  citations  should  ap- 
pear to  come  from  the  Mark  source  rather  than  from  a 
Logia  source  is  what  we  should  expect.  These  quota- 
tions have  a  distinctively  historical  character  and  are 
only  understood  when  in  their  historical  setting.  These 
conclusions  cannot  be  too  strongly  insisted  upon.  The 
above  division  rests  on  general  indications  that  have 
appealed  to  the  author.  Where  Matthew  and  Mark 
have  the  same  historical  setting,  we  generally  see  added 
indications  that  the  writer  of  the  first  Gospel  is  follow- 
ing the  original  Mark  source.  The  same  is  true  of 
Iyuke.  But  any  tabulation  of  this  kind  must  neces- 
sarily be  one  made  on  the  basis  of  indications  rather 
than  of  actual  evidence.     Then,  too,  the  results  are 


Sources  and  Texts  115 

largely  determined  by  one's  presuppositions  as  to  the 
synoptic  problem  itself. 

The  Old  Testament  Sources 

The  following  seem  to  be  citations  more  or  less  di- 
rectly from  the  Septuagint: 

1.  Markiv.,  i2(viii.,  18;  Matthew  xiii.,  14,  15,  Luke 
viii.,  10).     Matthew  quotes  identically. 

2.  Mark  xi.,  17  (Matthew  xxi.,  13,  Luke  xix.,  46), 
with  abridgments. 

3.  Mark  xii.,  2  (Matthew  xxi.,  33,  Luke  xx.,  9). 
Septuagint  terms  in  the  main. 

4.  Mark  xii.,  10,  11  (Matthew  xxi.,  42,  Luke  xx., 
17),  where  Matthew  and  Mark  are  identical. 

5.  Mark  xii.,  36  (Matthew  xxii.,  44,  Luke  xx.,  42), 
where  they  are  practically  identical. 

6.  Luke  iv.,  18,  19,  where  Luke  probably  follows  an 
erroneous  Greek  text. 

In  the  fourth  Gospel: 

1.  John  vi.,  45,  freely  cited. 

2.  John  x.,  34,  identical. 

3.  John  (xiii.,  18),  freely  cited  probably. 

4.  John  (xv.,  25),  probably  a  free  adoption. 

In  the  following  cases  it  is  difficult  to  trace  the  source 
of  the  quotation: 

Mark  iv.,  32  (Matthew  xiii.,  32,  Luke  xiii.,  19). 

Mark  xiii.,  12  (Matthew  x.,  21,  Luke  xii.,  53). 

Mark  xiv.,  27  (Matthew  xxvi.,  31). 

Luke  xx.,  18. 

In  Mark  xiv.,  27  (Matthew  xxvi.,  31),  an  Aramaic 
rendering  is  indicated,  Mark  being  nearest  to  the  He- 
brew. In  Mark  vii.,  6,  7  (Matthew  xv.,  8,  9),  while 
there  are  differences,  the  Septuagint  seems  to  have  been 
the  source,  yet  influenced  perhaps  by  an  Aramaic  ver- 


n6  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

sion.  In  Matthew  xi.,  23  (Luke  x.,  15),  the  agreement 
with  Luke  in  differing  from  the  Septuagint,  while  yet 
near  to  it,  indicates  the  influence  of  an  Aramaic  render- 
ing. In  Matthew  ix.,  13,  and  xii.,  7,  although  Septua- 
gint words  are  used,  there  is  evidence  of  an  Aramaic 
original,  Matthew  reproducing  the  Hebrew  rather  than 
the  Septuagint.  The  same  is  true  of  Luke  xxii.,  37, 
where  the  sense  is  that  of  the  Hebrew.  In  Matthew 
xi.,  10  (Luke  vii.,  27)  both  agree  in  differing  from  both 
Hebrew  and  Septuagint  and  a  late,  stereotyped  Greek 
form  appears. 

It  is  evident  that  the  main  source  of  the  recorders 
was  the  Septuagint. 

The  Gospel  Renderings 

In  only  two  cases  are  the  Synoptists  supported  by  the 
fourth  Gospel: 

Mark  iv.,  12,  and  parallels;  John  ix.,  39  and  xii.,  40. 

Mark  xi.,  17,  and  parallels  are  supported  by  John 
ii.,  16,  where,  however,  only  a  part  of  the  quotation  is 
given,  and  that  only  in  substance. 

Cases  of  entire  textual  agreement  are  few.  Mark 
vii.,  6,  7,  and  Matthew  xv.,  8,  9,  practically  agree. 
Matthew  xi.,  23,  and  Luke  x.,  15,  are  in  agreement. 
The  three  Synoptists  are  in  practical  agreement  textu- 
ally  in  Mark  xii.,  36,  37,  Matthew  xxii.,  44,  Luke  xx., 
42. 

In  two  cases  we  have  the  phenomena  of  a  longer  form 
in  Matthew,  and  a  shorter  in  Luke,  than  that  of  the 
original  Mark: 

Mark  iv.,  12  (Matthew  xiii.,  14,  15,  Luke  viii.,  10). 
Here  Matthew's  expansion  is  in  the  form  of  editorial 
completion. 


Sources  and  Texts  117 

Mark  xii.,  i  (Matthew  xxi.,  33,  Luke  xx.,  9). 

In  Mark  xii.,  10,  11  (Matthew  xxi.,  42,  Luke  xx., 
17),  Mark  and  Matthew  agree,  while  Luke  again  has 
a  shorter  form.  Luke  also  abridges  slightly  in  the  pas- 
sage Mark  xi.,  17,  Matthew  xxi.,  13,  14,  Luke  xix., 
46.  In  only  one  case  do  we  have  a  longer  form  in 
Luke  than  in  Matthew  and  Mark  :  Mark  xiii.,  12,  Mat- 
thew x.,  21,  Luke  xii.,  53,  where  Matthew  and  Mark 
agree.  In  only  one  case  has  Mark  a  longer  form  than 
Matthew  and  Luke:  Mark  xi.,  17  (Matthew  xxi.,  13, 
14,  Luke  xix.,  46). 

The  First  Gospel 

The  first  Gospel  departs  from  the  Septuagint  rather 
more  than  the  others  and  its  writer  seems  to  have 
used  either  a  Hebrew  or  Aramaic  original.  We  find 
only  one  quotation  in  Matthew  alone  (ix.,  13,  xii.,  7), 
which  we  found  to  be  a  genuine  saying,  but  inserted  in 
wrong  connections.  While  we  cannot  charge  the  writer 
with  consciously  changing  Jesus'  words,  he  does  some- 
times give  them  his  own  peculiar  form. 

In  one  case  we  have  evidence  of  a  verbal  change  with 
the  evident  intention  of  softening  a  "hard  saying" 
(xiii.,  14,  15).  We  find  three  instances  of  apparent 
expansion:  Matthew  xiii.,  14,  15  (Mark  iv.,  12,  Luke 
viii.,  10),  where  the  writer,  or  editor,  of  the  first  Gospel 
adds  the  full  quotation  which  was  cited  by  Jesus  only 
in  substance.  In  Matthew  xxi.,  33,  there  is  a  slight 
verbal  expansion.  In  Matthew  xxi.,  42,  there  is  an 
explanatory  addition  (43).  In  one  instance  especial 
pains  is  taken  to  bring  out  the  idea  of  fulfilment 
(Matthew  xiii.,  14,  15).  The  first  Gospel,  in  general, 
cites  more  fully  than  the  others. 


n8  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

The  Second  Gospel 

Only  one  passage  is  peculiar  to  Mark  (ix.,  48),  an 
evident  expansion  in  the  second  Gospel.  We  have  seen 
that  Mark  is  the  original  source  of  a  large  proportion 
of  the  quotations,  and  that  as  a  rule  the  most  original 
form  appears  here. 

The  Third  Gospel 

We  found  three  instances  peculiar  to  Luke,  one  being 
of  especial  significance.  The  passage  Luke  iv.,  18, 
19,  is  either  to  be  traced  to  his  independent  historical 
source;  or  else  its  substance  is  to  be  considered  as  say- 
ings from  his  Logia  for  which  he  attempted  to  find  a 
suitable  setting.  It  is  altogether  probable  that  it  came 
from  his  historical  source.  Luke  xx.,  18,  is  of  uncer- 
tain source  and  connection.  Luke  xxii.,  37,  is  uncon- 
nected, and  while  of  doubtful  authenticity  has  no 
decided  grounds  against  it.  In  his  delineation  of  the 
*'  parable"  in  xx.,  9^".,  the  writer  of  the  third  Gospel 
does  considerable  allegorizing  on  his  own  account.  In 
general  he  quotes  freely  and  frequently  abridges. 

The  Fourth  Gospel 

In  John  we  find  only  two  quotations  from  the  Old 
Testament  which  seem  to  rest  on  genuine  Logia  of 
Jesus.  Both  are  from  the  Psalms.  A  third  (vii.,  38) 
appears  to  be  a  quotation,  but  its  source  cannot  be 
traced.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  quotations  peculiar  to 
the  fourth  Gospel  are  largely  from  the  Psalms,  a  book 
which  he  uses  fruitfully  for  his  purpose,  and  which  was 
used  by  later  writers  in  the  interest  of  Messianic  fulfil- 
ment.    In  one  case  (Mark  iv.,  12,  Matthew  xiii.,  14, 


Sources  and  Texts  119 

15,  Luke  viii.,  10),  where  Matthew  goes  beyond  the 
other  two  Synoptists  in  the  interest  of  the  literalistic 
view  of  "  fulfilment,"  he  is  supported  by  John  in  ix., 
39,  and  especially  in  xii.,  39,  40,  with  added  explicit- 
ness  and  directness.  The  author  deals  freely  with  the 
Old  Testament,  is  verbally  careless,  and  in  quoting  is 
concerned  only  to  give  the  substance.  In  his  general 
handling  of  Old  Testament  prophetic  material,  turning 
everything  into  "fulfilment,"  he  is  at  one  with  the 
writer  of  Matthew. 

Some  Variations 

The  variety  in  the  representations  in  the  Gospels  is 
indicated  by  some  other  instances  of  textual  disagree- 
ment. In  Mark  xii.,  iff.,  Matthew  xxi.,  33#.,  Luke 
xx.,  9  ff.,  the  Synoptists  evince  a  difference  of  un- 
derstanding as  to  the  application  of  Jesus'  illustration 
to  the  prophets.  They  proceed  to  allegorize  on  their 
own  accounts  in  different  degrees.  In  Mark  xii.,  36, 
Matthew  xxii.,  44,  Luke  xx.,  42,  they  represent  differ- 
ently Jesus'  main  point  and  purpose  in  his  dialectic. 
In  Mark  iv.,  12,  Matthew  xiii.,  14,  15,  Luke  viii.,  10, 
Matthew  refers  the  saying  to  the  method  of  teaching, 
Luke  to  the  meaning  of  the  parable,  while  Mark  is  am- 
biguous. In  Mark  xii.,  1,  Matthew  xxi.,  33,  Luke 
xx.,  9,  Luke  represents  the  address  as  to  the  people, 
Matthew  and  Mark  to  the  leaders.  In  the  introduction, 
Matthew  xv.,  8,  9,  the  order  of  Mark  vii.,  6,  7,  is  re- 
versed. While  Matthew  xi.,  23,  appears  in  a  collection 
of  sayings,  Luke  x.,  15,  is  in  the  address  to  the  Seventy. 
The  placing  of  Matthew  xxi.,  33,  differs  from  Mark 
xii.,  2,  and  Luke  xx.,  9.  Verbal  changes  in  Luke  xiii., 
19,  were  necessitated  by  a  placing  which  differs  from 


120  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

that  of  Matthew  xiii.,  32,  and  Mark  iv.,  32,  and  by  a 
different  interpretation.  We  find  incidental  differences 
with  regard  to  the  immediate  occasion  in  the  passage 
Mark  xii.,  36,  Matthew  xxii.,  44,  Luke  xx.,  42,  al- 
though the  general  setting  is  the  same.  Differences  of 
introduction  occur  in  the  same  passage.  The  quota- 
tion in  Mark  xii.,  10,  11,  Matthew  xxi.,  42,  Luke  xx., 
17,  is  introduced  by  different  formulas.  Our  considera- 
tion of  Mark  iv. ,  32,  Matthew  xiii.,  32,  Luke  xiii.,  19,  re- 
vealed differences  in  the  representation,  made  necessary 
on  account  of  the  differing  conceptions  of  the  writers. 

We  found  several  instances  where  the  wording  of  the 
quotation  was  changed  from  that  of  the  Old  Testament 
source.  In  Mark  vii.,  6,  7,  Matthew  xv.,  8,  9,  it  is  the 
clause  thus  altered  by  both  Septuagint  and  Gospels 
that  makes  the  real  point  of  the  saying.  In  Mark  xiv. , 
27,  Matthew  xxvi.,  31,  the  source  itself  is  in  doubt  and 
the  change  may  be  due  to  Jesus'  own  free  citation. 
We  have  a  late  stereotyped  Greek  form  of  citation  in 
Matthew  xi.,  10,  Luke  vii.,  27.  A  change,  to  suit  the 
application,  is  made  in  Matthew  xi.,  23,  Luke  x.,  15. 
In  John  vi.,  45,  the  form  is  altered  to  fit  the  manner  of 
discourse.  Again  in  Mark  xi.,  17,  Matthew  xxi.,  13, 
14,  Luke  xix.,  46,  we  have  changes  of  construction,  to 
accommodate  the  passage  to  its  use.  In  two  cases  we 
have  evident  borrowing  from  one  Gospel  and  later  in- 
sertion in  another;  Mark  i.,  2,  being  from  Matthew  xi., 
10,  Luke  vii.,  27;  and  Matthew  xxi.,  44,  taken  from 
Luke  xx.,  18.  In  Luke  iv.,  18,  19,  we  have  an  error 
in  quoting,  which  represents  Jesus  as  uttering  a  clause 
which  he  did  not  utter. 

Aside  from  legitimate  changes  to  suit  the  discourse, 
we  may  say  that  these  citations  in  general  are  charac- 
terized by  freedom,  carelessness,  and  inexactness. 


Sources  and  Texts  121 

Formulas  of  Quotation 

We  have  next  to  consider  the  various  formulas  by 
which  the  quotations  of  Jesus  are  introduced.  We 
have  seen,  in  our  discussion  of  the  textual  nature  of 
the  citations,  that  these  formulas  vary,  and  we  do  not 
discover  any  uniformity  which  seems  to  indicate  any 
special  significance.  In  referring  to  the  Scriptures, 
Jesus  is  represented  as  using,  not  only  in  the  places  we 
have  discussed,  but  in  other  references  to  the  Old 
Testament,  such  terms  of  introduction  as  we  find  in 
the  following  cases: 

In  the  reference  to  John  the  Baptist  in  Matthew 
xi.,  10,  Luke  vii.,  27,  we  have  ovros  eanv  nspi  ov 
yeypanrai. 

In  Matthew  xxvi.,  24,  Mark  xiv.,  21,  Jesus  says  that 
the  Son  of  Man  goeth  holQgdS  yeypanrai  nspi  avrov, 
and  in  Mark  ix.,  13,  they  did  unto  John  the  Baptist 
uad go?  yeypanrai  sny  avrov,  and  again  in  ix.,  12,  the 
Son  of  Man  was  to  suffer,  for  kgos  ysypanrai  em  rov 
viov  rov  avQpoortov. 

In  the  passage  Mark  xiv.,  27,  Matthew  xxvi.,  31,  he 
introduces  an  illustration  in  Mark  by  on  yeypanrai 
and  in  Matthew  by  yeypanrai  yap. 

In  another  appeal  to  Scripture,  where  he  is  answer- 
ing the  adversary,  the  introduction  in  Luke  is  yeypan- 
rai  and  in  Matthew  yeypanrai  yap  (Matthew  iv., 
10,  Luke  iv.,  8). 

In  the  passage  Mark  xii.,  10,  Matthew  xxi.,  42, 
Luke  xx.,  17,  we  have,  variously  :  Mark,  ovde  rr)v 
ypaq)r)v  ravtrfv  aveyvoore'  Matthew,  ovdenors 
aveyvGors  sv  rai?  ypapaiS'  Luke,  ri  ovv  eariv  ro 
ysypaju/xsvov  rovro' 

In  Luke  xxii.,  37,  we  have  Xsyoo  yap  vjaiv  on 
rovro  ro  yeypajujdevor  6ei  rekeo~di]vai  ev  bjjloi. 


122  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

In  his  appeal  in  justification  of  the  cleansing  of  the 
temple  in  Matthew  xxi.,  13,  we  have  ysypa7traiy  the 
same  in  L,uke  xix.,  46;  and  in  Mark  xi.,  17,  yeypanrai 
on. 

In  Luke  xviii.,  31,  we  have  the  following  phrase  : 
xai   re\sG6r]6srai  navra  ra  yeypaja/Aera  61a  roov 

7TpOCpr/TGOV  TGO  VIGO  TOV  av6pG07ZOV. 

While  Matthew  xxiv.,  15,  refers  to  ro  pf]6ev  dia 
Daniel;  Iyuke  xxi.,  22,  has  "  days  of  vengeance  rov 
7t\rf(jdi]vai  navra  ra  yeypapi}j.Eva." 

In  other  places  we  have  such  expressions  as  o  6eo? 
enter  (Matthew  xv.,  4);  and  MoovarfS  einev  (Mark 
vii.,  10). 

Mark  vii.,  6,  and  Matthew  xv.,  7,  render  variously: 
hoXgqS  87tpo<p^T6V(T£v  *H6  aia$  .  .  .  co?  yeypan- 
rai$  and  kolKgoS    .     .     .      *Hffaia3  \eyoov. 

In  Mark  xii.,  36,  we  have  Aaveid  einev  ev  rep 
nvevjuan  top  ayiGp;  where  Matthew  xxii.,  43,  has 
simply  ev  rev  ev  pari}  and  L,uke  substitutes  ev  ftifiXcp 
tpaX/iGov. 

We  have  now  to  consider  the  use  of  the  verb  nXtjpoGo. 
In  classic  Greek  this  verb  means  "  to  fill,"  "  to  make 
full";  sometimes  "  to  satisfy,"  "  to  complete";  also  a 
general  meaning,  "to  fulfil,"  "to  accomplish,"  "to 
perform."  In  the  New  Testament  it  is  used  in  a 
variety  of  senses: 

1.  to  make  full; 

2.  to  complete; 

a.  a  number; 

b.  to  render  perfect; 

c.  to  accomplish,  to  carry  through  to  the  end; 

3.  to  realize,  carry  into  effect; 

a.  to  perform  a  duty ; 

b.  to  bring  to  pass,  to  satisfy,  to  accomplish. 


Sources  and  Texts  123 

Where  the  Evangelists  themselves  use  the  term  to  re- 
fer to  prophecy  in  such  ways  as  ivoc  or  onooi  7t\^pGodrj? 
it  seems  to  refer  in  their  minds  to  an  accomplishment  of 
the  prophecies  in  a  direct  and  literal  sense. 

In  Christ's  use  we  see  a  somewhat  broader  conception. 
It  is  first  to  be  noted  that  his  use  of  this  term  in  quoting 
prophecy  is  infrequent.  In  the  sermon  at  Nazareth, 
Luke  iv.,  18,  19,  he  says,  "  To-day  hath  this  Scripture 
been  fulfilled  in  }'our  ears,"  where  his  use  is  that  of  an 
applicatioyi  of  the  prophetic  description.  In  Luke  xxii. , 
37,  "  For  I  say  unto  you  that  this  which  is  written 
must  be  fulfilled  in  me,  And.  he  was  reckoned  with 
transgressors  ..."  where  the  verb  used  is  reXsa- 
dr/vai,  meaning,  "  accomplished";  "  It  must  come  to 
pass."  Here  the  wording  indicates  that  Christ  is  not 
represented  as  speaking  of  the  prophetic  word  as  some- 
thing written  of  him. 

In  Luke  xviii.,  31:  "  He  took  unto  him  the  Twelve 
and  said  unto  them,  Behold,  we  go  up  to  Jerusalem, 
and  all  the  things  that  are  written  through  the  prophets 
shall  be  accomplished  unto  the  Son  of  Man."  The 
word  here  is  reXeaO^aeraiy  where  there  is  an  indefinite- 
ness  of  meaning.     This  is  Luke's  special  term. 

Jesus  is  represented  as  using  7t\r}poDaai  in  the  phrase 
11  to  fulfil  all  righteousness."  (Compare  further  Luke 
xxi.,  24,  xxii.,  16,  John  iii.,  29,  xvii.,  13,  and,  most 
significant  of  all,  Matthew  v.,  17.)  A  glance  at  these 
places  and  the  other  uses  of  the  term  in  the  New 
Testament  will  show  that  while  the  formula  ivol  n\i]- 
pGo6r)  and  other  forms  of  the  verb  may  be  taken  as  in- 
troducing a  prediction  which  is  "  fulfilled,"  in  the  idea 
that  the  thing  was  written  concerning  this  event,  it  is 
not  for  this  purpose  only.  These  terms  are  like- 
wise used  for  comparison  of  events.     In  this  latter  case 


124  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

it  means  that  the  prophet's  words  may  be  fittingly  ap- 
plied to  the  case  in  question.  Still,  it  must  be  admitted 
that  where  the  Evangelists  use  the  phrase  in  quoting 
Old  Testament  Scripture  in  connection  with  events  in 
Christ's  life,  they  probably  do  it  with  the  idea  of  a  lit- 
eral accomplishment  in  Christ.  Such  a  passage  as 
John  xii.,  41,  illustrates  this. 

But  we  have  the  phrase  used  so  infrequently  by  Christ 
in  such  connections,  that  we  cannot  definitely  confine 
him  to  any  such  significance.  His  most  significant  use 
is  Matthew  v.,  17.  We  shall  defer  consideration  of 
the  term  as  used  here  until  we  have  completed  our  dis- 
cussion, as  we  shall  be  able  to  see  just  what  Christ 
meant  by  "  fulfilling  "  the  prophets  after  we  have  con- 
sidered his  use  of  prophecy.  A  comparison  of  all  these 
instances  shows  us  clearly  that  we  have  no  guide  with 
regard  to  the  formula  of  introduction,  as  to  whether  the 
case  has  predictive  significance  or  whether  it  is  merely 
used  illustratively. 

With  regard  then  to  the  use  of  the  verb  nXr^pOGOy  it 
is  evidently  used  freely. 

With  regard  to  yeypanTai,  used  in  various  ways: 
this  phrase  is  one  used  of  any  writing.  It  referred 
simply  to  the  matter  as  in  a  written  document. 

As  to  the  variety  of  use  in  all  these  terms:  this  is  due 
to  the  fact  that  each  writer  had  his  own  peculiar  liter- 
ary method  in  the  matter. 

This  uncertainty  seems  to  be  rendered  almost  hope- 
less. The  Evangelists  have  of  course  attributed  their 
own  interpretation  of  a  term  to  Christ.  Then,  too,  it 
must  be  remembered  that  we  cannot  determine  the 
actual  terms  used  by  Jesus.  For  example,  we  find  the 
writer  of  the  third  Gospel  using  reXsco  where  the  other 
writers  would  undoubtedly  have  used  7tX?jpoGD.     It  is 


Sources  and  Texts  125 

not  easy  to  determine  just  what  Aramaic  word  Christ 
used. 

One  or  two  observations  will  make  this  clear.  In 
general  the  Greek  equivalents  for  Aramaic  words,  as 
we  find  them  in  the  New  Testament,  are  Septuagint- 
isms.  And  it  seems  probable  that  this  was  their  rule 
so  far  as  they  had  any  rule.  The  verb  n\rfpooo  is  the 
Septuagint  rendering  of  the  Hebrew  tf  }0,  "to  fill" 
and  "  to  fulfil."  Sometimes  it  is  used  for  rfe,  "  to 
complete  "  "  to  finish  ";  while  reXsoo  is  generally  used 

for  nte. 

The  Hebrew  K^D  is  the  word  most  generally  used  in 
the  sense  of  fulfilling,  as  of  a  prophecy  or  prediction. 
The  nearest  that  th®  comes  to  this  is  its  use  for  the 
performance  of  a  vow.  It  is  not  used  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment in  the  sense  of  fulfilment  of  prediction.  The 
word  n^O  is  used  (Ezra  i.,  i)  of  the  carrying  out  of  a 
word  given,  but  this  is  not  strictly  the  sense  of  fulfill- 
ing a  prediction  and  it  is  not  used  in  just  this  latter 
sense.  Thus  generally  the  word  tf^D  is  the  word  that 
we  should  expect  to  have  rendered  by  7i\r}poco  and 
used  in  the  meaning  of  prophetic  fulfilment.  But 
this  is  not  its  first  meaning.  To  say  that  a  thing  is 
fulfilled,  using  this  word,  does  not  necessarily  mean 
fulfilment  of  prediction.  This  is  a  secondary  mean- 
ing. 

Now  the  four  Gospels  use  7t\rjpooD  in  a  variety  of 
senses,  but  their  use  of  it  in  application  to  predictive 
prophecy  is  perhaps  the  most  frequent.  In  two  notice- 
able exceptions,  Iyuke  uses  reXeao  where  we  should  nat- 
urally expect  7t\r]poGD$  namely,  Luke  xviii.,  31,  and 
xxii.,  37.  In  the  Syriac  Palimpsest  the  Syriac  equiva- 
lent for  the  Hebrew  tf^D  is  generally  given  for  7t\rfpoco. 
But  in  Luke  xviii.,  31,  we  have  the  Syriac  equivalent 


126  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

for  Df?ty  for  L,uke's  tsXaco  $  while  again  in  I,uke  xxii., 
37,  we  have  tf^D  for  reXeco. 

The  above  observations  cannot  be  said  to  lead  us  to 
any  definite  result.  And  that  is  what  they  have  been 
adduced  for.  The  fact  is,  we  cannot  determine  the 
meaning  of  Jesus  when  he  says  a  thing  is  "  fulfilled," 
by  merely  assuming  prediction.  But  commentators 
have  generally  assumed  that  when  it  is  said  that  such 
and  such  a  thing  is  fulfilled,  we  are  to  understand  the 
thing  referred  to  as  a  prediction  of  the  event  in  which 
it  is  fulfilled.  This  is  an  entirely  unwarranted  assump- 
tion. It  is  just  this  that  has  led  to  a  great  deal  of  lit- 
eralizing  in  Old  Testament  prophecy  that  we  might 
well  have  been  spared.  It  has  been  assumed  that 
nXr/pooD  in  the  New  Testament  had  this  fixed  mean- 
ing, while  a  very  little  linguistic  study  shows  that  it 
has  not. 

Indeed,  there  are  cases  where  the  idea  is  excluded. 
Take,  for  example,  Luke  xxii.,  37.  Jesus  is  repre- 
sented as  affirming,  ro  yeypafAfievov  dei  reXeo~6r}vai 
sv  s/xoi.  Now  this  is  very  different  from  saying  ro 
ysypaf.ifj.Evov  nepi  Sfxov.  Christ  could  thus  say  in 
general  cases,  as  he  does,  "  this  saying  is  fulfilled  in 
me,"  referring  to  an  Old  Testament  passage  which  had 
nothing  to  do  with  him,  but  which,  embodying  some 
universally  applicable  truth  or  principle,  is  applicable 
to  him.  It  is  evident  that  the  Gospel  writers  did  not 
make  such  a  distinction.  And  it  has  been  the  failure 
to  make  it  that  has  led  to  a  great  deal  of  the  unneces- 
sary, unreal,  encumbering  typology  and  literalistic  in- 
terpretation which  has  served  no  good  purpose.  Later 
interpreters,  following  the  example  of  the  Evangelists, 
who  in  turn  were  influenced  by  the  Rabbinical  methods 
of  their  times,  have  taken  some  word  which  Jesus  has 


Sources  and  Texts  127 

applied  in  some  such  natural  way,  and  then  have  read 
back,  into  the  Old  Testament  passage  cited,  a  definite 
prediction. 

One  instance  deserves  notice.  In  the  classic  passage, 
Matthew  v.,  17,  Jesus  says,  "  I  came  not  to  destroy  but 
to  fulfil  (7r\r}f)G0Gai)."  He  then  adds:  "Till  heaven 
and  earth  pass  away,  one  jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in  no- 
wise pass  away  from  the  law,  till  all  things  be  accomp- 
lished (or  fulfilled)  (sgdZ  av  navra  ysyi]tai).yi  The 
general  sense  would  lead  us  to  expect  the  verb  7t\rjf)OGo 
in  this  last  clause.  Our  old  English  version  translated 
it  as  if  it  were,  "  fulfilled."  This  is  undoubtedly  the 
sense  and  the  verb  7t\r]poGQ  would  fit  the  meaning 
better.  For  it  is  evident  that  Jesus  meant  the  same 
thing  in  this  verse  that  he  did  in  the  preceding.  Per- 
haps the  most  probable  explanation  is  that  the  writer 
of  the  first  Gospel,  as  he  does  in  other  cases,  tried  to 
soften  Jesus'  statement  in  reference  to  the  law.  In  any 
event  this  indicates  how  little  reliance  we  can  place  on 
these  terms  with  regard  to  exactness. 

Conclusion 

In  conclusion  it  is  to  be  noted  that  there  are  not 
nearly  so  man)7  prophetic  citations  by  Jesus  as  a  casual 
reading  of  the  Gospels  would  suggest.  We  can  form 
no  absolute  rule  as  to  source ;  although  a  large  propor- 
tion are  based  on  the  Septuagint,  probably  none  are 
directly  from  the  Hebrew,  and  some  are  evidently 
Aramaic  renderings.  We  see  great  freedom  in  abridg- 
ing, condensing,  expanding,  and  combining.  Several 
give  evidence  of  being  quotations  from  memory.  We 
see  the  influence  of  Rabbinical  exegesis  where  there  is 


128  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

a  tendency  to  represent  Jesus  as  making  a  more  direct 
citation  than  he  did.  This  is  always  in  the  interest  of 
the  Messianic  idea  as  testified  to  by  the  prophets.  We 
discover  no  formula  of  quotation  to  indicate  whether 
the  prophecy  cited  is  a  direct  prediction  or  for  illustra- 
tion only. 

It  is  significant  that,  while  we  do  find  indications  of 
the  throwing  in  of  words,  of  turns  given  in  order  to 
bring  out  the  conception  of  the  writer,  we  note  the 
absence  of  such  to  a  very  important  degree.  Nothing 
like  intentional  falsification  appears  in  the  treatment  of 
the  text.  The  work  of  the  writers  of  the  Gospels  was 
faithfully  and  truthfulty  done,  but  yet  in  accordance 
with  the  somewhat  careless  and  unguarded  literary 
methods  of  their  time.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  while 
Matthew  certainly  does  have  a  distinct  theory  which 
influenced  him  in  his  writing,  the  fact  that  we  have 
only  one  quotation  which  is  peculiar  to  his  Gospel  in- 
dicates his  faithfulness  in  presenting  the  words  of  Jesus 
in  this  respect.  In  every  case,  by  a  comparison  of  the 
Gospels,  we  are  enabled  to  get  a  clear  view  of  Jesus' 
purpose  and  method  in  the  citation  and  application  of 
prophecy.  While  it  cannot  be  said  that  we  have  an 
actual  photograph  in  each  case,  we  do  get  a  true  pic- 
ture of  the  scene.  Or,  to  put  it  differently,  we  may  say 
that  with  regard  to  the  use  of  prophecy  by  Christ  in 
general,  we  get  photographs,  taken  from  different 
angles  with  differences  of  immediate  setting. 


CHAPTER  IV 

the  use  of  prophetic  phrases,  terms,  figures, 
and  language  by  jesus 

In  General 

IN  addition  to  his  explicit  quotations  from  the  Pro- 
phets, we  find  in  the  sayings  and  teachings  of  Jesus 
a  certain  historical  and  literary  dependence  on  pro- 
phetic events  and  sayings;  often  indicating  that  the 
Scripture  language  or  event  suggested  to  him  the  form 
of  his  teaching,  the  language  in  which  it  is  expressed, 
or,  in  some  cases,  the  truth  itself.  We  shall  suggest 
some  of  these  which  are  taken  from  the  Gospels  at 
random. 

The  saying  in  Matthew  vii.,  21,  22,  "  not  every  one 
that  saith  unto  me,  L,ord,  I,ord,  etc,"  reminds  us  of 
Hosea  viii.,  2,  "  My  God,  we  Israel  know  Thee."  In 
Matthew  x.,  6,  "  Go  rather  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the 
House  of  Israel,"  we  have  an  analogy  as  far  as  the 
language  is  concerned  to  such  phrases  as  in  Psalm 
cxix.,  176,  "  I  have  gone  astray  like  a  lost  sheep"; 
Isaiah  liii.,  6,  "  All  we  like  sheep  have  gone  astray"; 
and  Jeremiah  1.,  6,  "  My  people  hath  been  lost  sheep." 
In  Matthew  x.,  8,  Jesus'  injunction  to  the  disciples  to 
"Heal  the  sick,  raise  the  dead,  cleanse  the  lepers," 
we  have  striking  prophetic  language.  The  injunction 
in  Matthew  x.,  28,  "  Be  not  afraid  of  them  that  kill  the 

body,  but  are  not  able  to  kill  the  soul;  but  rather  fear 

9 

129 


13°  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

him  who  is  able  to  destroy  both  soul  and  body  in  hell," 
is  like  Isaiah  viii. ,  12,  13,  "  Neither  fear  ye  their  fear, 
nor  be  in  dread  thereof.  Jahwe  of  Hosts,  him  shall  ye 
sanctify,  and  let  him  be  your  fear,  and  let  him  be  your 
dread." 

We  have  already  discussed  the  relation  between 
Matthew  x.,  36  ff.t  and  parallels,  and  Micah  vii.,  6, 
11  And  a  man's  foes  shall  be  they  of  his  own  house- 
hold." The  saying  in  Matthew  xi.,  5,  "The  poor 
have  good  tidings  preached  to  them,"  is  a  reminiscence 
of  Isaiah  lxi.,  1,  from  which  chapter  Jesus  elsewhere 
quotes  verbally.  We  have  a  historical  reference  in 
Matthew  xii.,  41,  to  the  preaching  of  the  prophet 
Jonah.  References  to  the  ' '  sower "  as  in  Matthew 
xiii.,  2>ff.y  remind  us  of  such  figures  as  in  Isaiah  lv.,  10, 
and  Amos  ix.,  13.  The  statement  of  Matthew  xiii., 
20,  in  the  same  connection,  reminds  us  of  such  sayings 
of  the  prophets  as  Isaiah  lviii.,  2,  and  Kzekiel  xxxiii., 
31,  32,  the  likeness  being  that  of  the  truth  uttered. 
The  rhetoric  of  Matthew  xiii.,  43,  "Then  shall  the 
righteous  shine  forth  as  the  sun  in  the  kingdom  of 
their  Father,"  has  sufficient  likeness  to  be  regarded  al- 
most as  a  quotation  from  Daniel  xii.,  3,  "And  they 
that  are  wise  shall  shine  as  the  brightness  of  the  firma- 
ment: and  they  that  turn  many  to  righteousness  as 
the  stars  for  ever  and  ever." 

Jesus'  use  of  the  proverb  regarding  the  rejection  of 
a  prophet  by  his  own  people  may  have  been  suggested 
by  the  like  experience  of  his  great  predecessor,  Jeremiah 
(Jeremiah  xi.,  21).  The  reference  to  the  Pharisees  as 
"  blind  guides,"  in  Matthew  xv.,  14,  is  similar  to  the 
descriptions  in  Isaiah  lvi.,  10,  and  Malachi  ii.,  8,  given 
under  like  circumstances.  The  figure  of  the  ' '  plant ' ' 
in  Matthew  xv.,  13,  is  similarly  used  in  Isaiah  lx.,  21, 


The  Use  of  Prophetic  Phrases     131 

and  lxi.,  3.  Such  apocalyptical  expressions  as  in  Mat- 
thew xvi.,  27,  "The  Son  of  Man  shall  come  in  the 
glory  of  his  Father  with  his  angels;  and  then  shall  he 
render  unto  every  man  according  to  his  deeds,"  are  evi- 
dently taken  from  Daniel  (see  Daniel  vii.,  10  and  13). 
These  we  shall  discuss  more  fully  later. 

Similar  to  Matthew  xix.,  5,  are  the  prophetic  words 
in  Malachi  ii.,  15,  concerning  the  sacredness  of  the  mar- 
riage relation.  "  With  God  all  things  are  possible," 
in  Matthew  xix.,  26,  reminds  us  of  Jeremiah  xxxii., 
17,  "  There  is  nothing  too  hard  for  Thee,"  and  the  say- 
ing in  Jeremiah  xxxii.,  27,  "I  am  the  I^ord,  the  God 
of  all  flesh;  is  there  anything  too  hard  for  me?"  The 
figure  of  the  "  cup"  in  Matthew  xx.,  22,  is  found  in 
Isaiah  li.,  22,  "  The  bowl  of  the  cup  of  my  fury."  The 
description  of  his  own  work  as  that  of  service  and  his 
life  as  a  ransom  in  Matthew  xx.,  28,  is  like  the  picture 
of  the  suffering  servant  of  Isaiah  liii.,  10-12.  This 
term  "  ransom  "  is  significantly  used  in  Psalm  xlix.,  7. 
In  Matthew  xxi.,  16,  Jesus  quotes  Psalm  viii.,  2,  "  Out 
of  the  mouth  of  babes  and  sucklings  thou  hast  perfected 
praise,"  to  silence  his  captious  critics.  The  figure  of 
the  "  mountain  "  in  Matthew  xxi.,  21,  is  used  in  Psalm 
xlvi.,  2.  The  saying  in  Matthew  xxiii.,  12,  "Who- 
soever shall  exalt  himself  shall  be  humbled;  and  who- 
soever shall  humble  himself  shall  be  exalted,"  is  a 
teaching  of  God's  reversal  of  the  human  judgment,  like 
that  found  in  such  words  of  prophecy  as  Kzekiel  xxi. , 
26,  "  Exalt  that  which  is  low  and  abase  that  which  is 
high."  The  expression,  "  Behold  your  house  is  left 
unto  you  desolate,"  Matthew  xxiii.,  38,  sounds  like 
Isaiah  lxiv.,  11,  Jeremiah  xii.,  7,  and  especially  Jere- 
miah xxii.,  5,  "  This  house  shall  become  a  desolation," 
uttered  under  circumstances  not  unsimilar. 


132  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

Jesus  uses  fitting  scriptural  language  in  Matthew 
xxiii.,  39,  where  he  cites  Psalm  cxviii.,  26,  "  Blessed 
is  he  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord."  In  Mat- 
thew xxv.,  32,  we  have  a  prophetic  description  of  the 
judgment  of  "  all  the  nations"  reminding  us  of  the 
phrase  in  Joel  iii.,  12.  In  the  same  passage  the  figure 
of  the  sheep  and  goats  may  have  been  suggested  by 
Kzekiel  xxxiv.,  17,  "I  judge  between  cattle  and  cattle, 
as  well  the  rams  as  the  he-goats."  We  have  a  similar 
comparison  with  he-goats  in  Zechariah  x.,  3.  The 
phrase  "  blood  of  the  covenant "  in  Matthew  xxvi.,  28, 
is  also  found  in  Zechariah  ix.,  11.  Jesus'  reference  to 
his  generation  as  "  sinful  and  adulterous,"  as  in  Mark 
viii.,  38,  has  the  genuine  prophetic  ring.  (Compare 
Isaiah  lvii.,  3.)  Such  terms  as  "sheep"  and  "little 
ones,"  as  applied  to  his  own  (compare  Mark  ix.,  42), 
are  similar  to  those  used  in  the  prophets,  as  in  Zech- 
ariah xiii.,  7.  Luke  vi.,  38,  regarding  the  recompense 
from  generous  giving,  contains  a  figure  found  in  Isaiah 
lxv.,  6,  7,  Jeremiah  xxxii.,  18,  and  Psalm  lxxix.,  12. 
His  comparison  of  the  hearer  who  ' '  does  not ' '  to  the 
falling  house  in  Luke  vi.,  49,  is  similar  to  Kzekiel  xiii., 
10-16.  The  use  of  the  verb  "  to  stumble,"  as  in  Luke 
vii.,  23,  and  in  many  other  passages,  is  the  same  as  that 
in  such  passages  as  Isaiah  viii.,  14,  15.  It  is  quite 
likely  that  the  expression,  "  I  beheld  Satan  fallen  as 
lightning  from  heaven,"  in  Luke  x.,  18,  may  be  a 
reminiscence  of  a  similar  expression  by  Isaiah  (xiv., 
12)  in  his  parable  against  the  King  of  Babylon,  "  How 
art  thou  fallen  from  heaven."  The  exhortation,  "  Re- 
joice that  your  names  are  written  in  heaven,"  re- 
sembles such  passages  as  Psalm  lxix.,  28,  Ezekiel  xiii., 
9,  and  especially  Daniel  xii.,  1,  which  speaks  of  "  every 
one  that  shall  be  found  written  in  the  book." 


The  Use  of  Prophetic  Phrases     133 

In  the  Lord's  Prayer  the  phrase,  "  Hallowed  be  Thy 
name,"  is  a  prophetic  one.  (See  Isaiah  xxix.,  23.) 
The  teaching  of  Jesus  that  earnest  desire  is  the  require- 
ment for  the  heavenly  Father's  gift  (Luke  xi.,  9)  is 
genuinely  prophetic,  as  in  Isaiah  lv.,  6,  and  especially 
Jeremiah  xxix.,  13,  "  And  ye  shall  seek  me,  and  find 
me,  when  ye  shall  search  for  me  with  all  your  heart." 
In  Luke  xi.,  \7  ff.>  he  makes  an  historical  reference  to 
the  treatment  of  the  prophets.  The  designation  of  his 
disciples  as  "  little  flock,"  in  Luke  xii.,  32,  is  a  phrase 
found  in  such  passages  as  Isaiah  ad.,  n.  The  injunc- 
tion, "  Fear  not,"  in  Luke  xii.,  32,  is  a  frequent  term  of 
encouragement  in  the  prophets,  as  in  Isaiah  xii.,  14, 
and  xliv.,  2. 

In  Luke  xiii.,  6,  we  have  another  parable  of  a  fig-tree 
not  unlike  the  prophetic  parable  of  the  vineyard  in 
Isaiah  v. ,  2  ff.  The  comparison  of  the  Kingdom  of 
Heaven  to  "  a  great  supper"  in  Luke  xiv.,  16,  is  like 
Isaiah's  representation  of  Jahwe's  great  feast  (xxv.,  6). 
In  Luke  xv.,  4^.,  we  have  another  representation  of 
the  lost  as  "sheep"  similar  to  Kzekiel  xxxiv.,  1-16, 
and  Isaiah  ad.,  11.  Jesus'  descriptions  of  the  sufferings 
of  the  lost  are  frequently  put  in  vivid  language  which 
reminds  us  of  that  of  the  prophets.  (Compare  Luke 
xvi.,  24,  and  like  passages,  with  Zechariah  xiv.,  12, 
and  Isaiah  lxvi.,  24.)  The  representation  of  God  as 
the  avenger  of  his  elect  is  prophetic.  (Compare  Luke 
xviii.,  7,  and  Isaiah  lxiii.,  4.)  Notice  the  similarity  of 
language  between  Habakkuk  ii.,  11,  "For  the  stone 
shall  cry  out  of  the  wall,"  and  Luke  xix.,  40,  "  The 
stones  will  cry  out."  The  description  of  the  coming 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  in  Luke  xix.,  43,  is  given 
in  prophetic  language  similar  to  Isaiah  xxix.,  3,  and 
is  especially  like  the  descriptions  in  Daniel   xi.,   15, 


134  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

Jeremiah  vi.,  6,  Kzekiel  iv.,  2,  and  xxvi.,  8,  so  like  as 
to  indicate  that  his  is  a  reminiscence  of  the  prophetic 
picture  of  the  downfall  of  this  same  city.  In  I,uke 
xix.,  44,  we  have  similar  phraseology  to  Hosea  xiii., 
16,  Psalm  cxxxvii.,  9,  and  Nahum  iii.,  10,  indicating 
direct  dependence  again. 

The  saying  in  L,uke  xxi.,  33,  "  Heaven  and  earth 
shall  pass  away;  but  my  words  shall  not  pass  away," 
contains  a  teaching  regarding  the  unchangeableness 
and  the  enduring  quality  of  truth  which  is  couched  in 
similar  language  in  Psalm  cii.,  26,  Isaiah  li.,  6,  and 
especially  in  Psalm  cxix.,  89,  and  Isaiah  xl.,  8,  thus: 
■ '  Forever,  O  Jahwe,  Thy  word  is  settled  in  heaven ' ' ; 
"The  grass  withereth,  the  flower  fadeth;  but  the 
word  of  our  God  shall  stand  forever. ' '  The  term  ' '  to 
sift,"  as  used  by  Jesus  in  I^uke  xxii.,  31,  was  used  by 
the  greatest  of  prophets,  John  the  Baptist,  in  his  de- 
cription  of  the  coming  Messiah,  and  was  a  familiar  pro- 
phetic term  used  in  Amos  ix.,  9.  {See also^oh  i.,  6-12, 
and  ii.,  1-6,  where  Satan's  office  is  similarly  presented.) 
In  Iyuke  xxiii.,  30,  "  Then  shall  they  begin  to  say  to 
the  mountains,  Fall  on  us;  and  to  the  hills,  Cover  us," 
we  have  freely  quoted  from  memory  the  words  of  Hosea 
x.,  8,  "  And  they  shall  say  to  the  mountains,  Cover  us; 
and  to  the  hills,  Fall  on  us."  Jesus'  description  of 
the  Judgment  as  a  day  of  distress  and  his  comparisons 
of  it  are  not  unlike  the  prophetic  comparisons  of  it  to 
the  winnowing  of  chaff  on  the  threshing-floor.  For  the 
former  see  Jeremiah  xxx.,  6,  where  the  "  day  of  the 
Lord  "  is  similarly  figured.  For  the  latter  see  Habak- 
kuk  iii.,  12,  Isaiah  xxv.,  10,  Daniel  ii.,  35,  Hosea 
xiii.,  3. 


The  Use  of  Prophetic  Phrases     135 

In  the  Fourth  Gospel 

The  fourth  Gospel  is  so  cast  in  the  writer's  own 
form  that  we  have  not  so  much  the  sayings  of  Jesus  as 
his  teachings  developed  from  them.  The  language  is 
partly  that  of  Jesus  and  partly  that  of  the  writer. 
Hence  we  cannot  trace  the  prophetic  thought  and  lan- 
guage back  to  Jesus  with  so  much  confidence  as  in  the 
Synoptists.  But  it  will  be  worth  while  to  notice  some 
of  the  correspondences.  Jesus'  characterization  of 
Nathaniel  as  "  an  Israelite  in  whom  there  is  no  guile ' ' 
(i.,  47)  is  like  the  Psalmist's  description  of  the  man 
"  in  whose  spirit  there  is  no  guile  "  (Psalm  xxxii.,  2). 
In  John  i.,  51,  the  phrase  "  the  heaven  opened  "  is  one 
used  by  the  prophets  in  describing  their  visions,  as  in 
Kzekiel  i.,  1,  where  the  same  words  occur.  The  ex- 
pression "  living  water"  in  John  iv.,  10,  is  similarly 
used  in  Jeremiah  ii.,  13,  xvii.,  13,  and  Zechariah  xiv., 
8,  and  these  may  have  suggested  it.  On  this  phrase 
compare  also  John  iv.,  14,  with  Isaiah  xlix.,  10.  The 
universalism,  spiritual  character  of  worship,  expressed 
in  John  iv.,  21,  are  similarly  expressed  in  such  passages 
as  Zephaniah  ii.,  n.  In  John  iv.,  36,  we  have  the 
figure  of  the  sower  and  reaper  so  often  used  in  the  pro- 
phetic writings.  (See  Amos  ix.,  13.)  The  saying  con- 
cerning the  resurrection  in  v.,  29,  employs  the  language 
of  Daniel  xii.,  2,  "  Some  to  everlasting  life  and  some  to 
shame  and  everlasting  contempt."  A  comparison  of 
Johnvi.,  27,  with  Isaiah  lv.,  2,  shows  a  similar  teaching 
regarding  the  transient  and  eternal  good  presented  in 
a  similar  figure. 

In  John  vii.,  24,  the  injunction  regarding  righteous 
judgment  is  in  similar  language  to  Isaiah  xi.,  3,  4, 
"  He  shall  not  judge  after  the  sight  of  his  eyes,  etc." 
In  John  vii.,  37#.,  we  have  figures  comparing  salvation 


136  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

to  water,  borrowed  from  such  passages  as  Isaiah  lv., 
1,  and  xii.,  3.  On  Jesus'  characterization  of  him- 
self in  this  Gospel  as  "  the  light  of  the  world,"  com- 
pare Psalm  xxxvi.,  9,  "  In  thy  light  shall  we  see 
light";  Isaiah  xlii.,  6,  xlix.,  6,  and  Malachi  iv.,  2. 
The  phrase,  "  ye  shall  die  in  your  sins,"  in  viii.,  21,  is 
used  in  Kzekiel  iii.,  18,  and  xxxiii.,  8,  "The  wicked 
man  shall  die  in  his  sin."  In  John  x.,  n-17,  we 
have  striking  prophetic  language.  We  have  the  ' '  good 
shepherd  "  and  "  the  sheep  "  of  Isaiah  xl.,  11,  Kzekiel 
xxxiv.,  12,  xxxiv.,  23,  and  xxxviL,  24.  The  "hire- 
ling" of  verse  12  reminds  us  of  Kzekiel  xxxiv.,  2-6, 
Zechariah  xiii.,  7,  xi.,  17,  and  Jeremiah  xxiii.,  1-3. 
In  verse  16,  "  other  sheep  I  have  which  are  not  of  this 
fold, ' '  recalls  Isaiah  lvi. ,  8,  ' '  yet  will  I  gather  others 
to  him,  to  his  gathered  ones,"  and  more  especially  of 
Kzekiel  xxxiv.,  11-13.  In  the  same  verse,  "one  flock, 
one  shepherd,"  may  be  a  reminiscence  of  the  "one 
shepherd"  of  Kzekiel  xxxiv.,  23,  and  xxxvii.,  24. 
The  figures  of  light  and  darkness  in  John  xii.,  35,  are 
not  unlike  Jeremiah  xiii.,  16,  and  Isaiah  ix.,  2.  In 
John  xv. ,  i/.,we  have  the  vine,  with  God  as  the  hus- 
bandman, as  in  the  parable  of  the  vineyard  contained 
in  the  fifth  chapter  of  Isaiah.  The  ' '  true  vine ' '  of  xv. , 
1,  is  used  in  Jeremiah  ii.,  21.  John  xv.,  6,  sounds  like 
Kzekiel  xv.,  1  ff.,  and  verse  8  like  Isaiah  lxi.,  3.  How 
like  Psalm  cxix.,  160,  "  The  sum  of  thy  word  is  truth," 
is  John  xvii.,  17,  "  Thy  word  is  truth  "  ? 

Suggestions  of  this  kind  might  be  carried  on  indefi- 
nitely. They  indicate  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the 
prophetic  writings  on  the  part  of  our  I^ord,  a  know- 
ledge so  intimate  that  reminiscences  out  of  these  books 
suggest  statements  of  truth  and  forms  of  language  to 
Jesus  in  a  very  natural  and  spontaneous  way. 


The  Use  of  Prophetic  Phrases     137 

Some  Special  Passages 

We  have  in  the  Beatitudes  (Matthew  v.,  3-10  or  12, 
and  Luke  vi.,  20-23),  a  striking  use  of  prophetic  lan- 
guage. While  they  show  no  literal  dependence  and  the 
citations  are  free  adoptions  of  the  prophetic  language, 
in  some  instances  they  are  nearly  exact  references. 

Matthew  v.,  3:  "  Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit." 

Luke  vi.,  20:  "  Blessed  are  ye  poor." 

Toy  considers  these  as  ' '  a  summing  up  "  of  various 
passages  such  as  the  following: 

Isaiah  xxix.,  19:  "The  meek  also  shall  increase 
their  joy  in  Jahwe,  and  the  poor  among  men  shall  re- 
joice in  the  Holy  One  of  Israel." 

Isaiah  lxi.,  1:  "Jahwe  hath  anointed  me  to  preach 
good  tidings  to  the  meek." 

Isaiah  lxvi.,  2:  ".  .  .  but  to  this  man  will  I 
look,  even  to  him  that  is  poor  and  of  a  contrite  spirit." 

Psalm  lxix.,  32  (33):  "  The  meek  have  seen  it  and 
are  glad." 

To  these,  suggested  by  Toy,  we  would  add  Psalm 
xxxiv.,  2,  Isaiah  xiv.,  32,  Zephaniah  iii.,  12,  and 
Isaiah  lvii.,  15. 

Matthew  v.,  4:  "  Blessed  are  they  that  mourn;  for 
they  shall  be  comforted." 

Luke  vi.,  21:  "  Blessed  are  ye  that  weep  now,  for  ye 
shall  laugh." 

In  Isaiah  lxi.,  2,  a  part  of  the  prophetic  mission 
which  Jesus  makes  his  own  in  the  sermon  at  Nazareth  is 
* '  to  comfort  all  mourners. ' '  Matthew,  who  follows  the 
Septuagint  here,  is  probably  the  preferred  reading.  We 
may  also  compare  this  Beatitude  with  Psalm  cxxvi.,  5, 
"  They  that  sow  in  tears  shall  reap  in  joy,"  and  verse  6. 


138  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

Matthew  v.,  5:  "  Blessed  are  the  meek;  for  they  shall 
inherit  the  earth." 

This  is  almost  verbal  from  Psalm  xxxvii.,  11. 

Matthew  v.,  6:  "  Blessed  are  they  that  hunger  and 
thirst  after  righteousness;  for  they  shall  be  filled.' ' 

IyUke  vi.,  21:  "  Blessed  are  ye  that  hunger  now;  for 
ye  shall  be  filled." 

This  at  once  reminds  us  of  the  Gospel  proclamation 
in  Isaiah  lv.,  iff.:  "  Ho,  every  one  that  thirsteth,  come 
ye  to  the  waters,  and  he  that  hath  no  money;  come  ye, 
buy  and  eat;  yea,  come,  buy  wine  and  milk  without 
money  and  without  price.  .  .  ."  The  prophets  are 
replete  with  promises  similarly  couched. 

Matthew  v.,  7:  "Blessed  are  the  merciful;  for  they 
shall  obtain  mercy." 

In  Psalm  xviii.,  26  (25),  we  have,  "  With  the  mer- 
ciful thou  wilt  show  thyself  merciful."  In  Proverbs 
xi.,  17,  "The  merciful  man  doeth  good  to  his  own 
soul."  Matthew  has  for  "merciful,"  ek£rj}M)veS?  agree- 
ing with  the  Septuagint  of  Proverbs  xi.,  17,  which  has 
eXerjpiGov.  Compare  also  Proverbs  xix.,  17,  containing 
the  same  thought. 

Matthew  v.,  8:  "  Blessed  are  the  pure  in  heart;  for 
they  shall  see  God." 

In  Psalm  xxiv.,  3-5,  we  have  a  like  thought:  "  Who 
shall  ascend  into  the  hill  of  Jahwe  ?  and  who  shall  stand 
in  his  holy  place  ?  He  that  hath  clean  hands  and  a  pure 
heart;  .  .  ."  The  Septuagint  of  Psalm  xxiv.,  4, 
has  uaOapoS  rr)  uapdiq.  Matthew  has  the  same  in 
the  plural,  uadapoi  rr\  uapdiq. 

Compare  further  with  Psalm  li.,  12  (10),  and  xv.,  2. 


The  Use  of  Prophetic  Phrases     139 

Matthew  v.,  9:  "Blessed  are  the  peacemakers;  for 
they  shall  be  called  sons  of  God." 

Perhaps  the  nearest  verbal  reference  is  Proverbs  xii., 
20:  "To  the  counsellors  of  peace  is  joy."  Compare 
also  Isaiah  xxxii.,  17,  and  Hi.,  7. 

Matthew  v.,  10:  "  Blessed  are  they  that  have  been 
persecuted  for  righteousness'  sake;  for  theirs  is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven." 

Luke  vi.,  22,  renders  this  more  freely. 

In  Daniel  vii.,  25-27,  we  have  the  picture  of  the 
saints  of  the  Most  High,  who  have  endured  persecu- 
tion, receiving  the  "kingdom  and  the  dominion,  and 
the  greatness  of  the  kingdoms  under  the  whole  heaven. ' ' 

With  regard  to  the  Beatitudes  as  a  whole,  it  is  prob- 
able that  while  Luke  has  in  some  respects  the  more 
original  form,  and  that  the  words  "  in  spirit "  in  Mat- 
thew v.,  3,  and  "  after  righteousness,"  in  Matthew  v., 
6,  are  explanatory  additions  of  the  writer  of  the  first 
Gospel,  the  application  in  Luke  to  temporal  needs  and 
sufferings  is  a  part  of  the  E)bionitism  of  the  third  Gos- 
pel. There  is  probability  that  they  are  expanded  in 
the  first  Gospel,  making  ten  to  correspond  with  the 
Decalogue.  The  first  Gospel  is  probably  right  in  pre- 
serving the  spiritual  sense  in  which  Christ  undoubtedly 
used  the  words.  Matthew  v.,  4,  is  altogether  preferable 
to  Luke  vi.,  21.  We  have  here  a  selection  b}r  Jesus  of 
Scriptural  language  and  thought  which  was  entirely  in 
keeping  with  his  own  spirit  and  teachings.  These 
passages  from  Isaiah,  as  the  prophet  himself  spoke 
them,  while  phrased  in  language  applying  to  temporal 
needs,  are  yet  ethico-religious  in  content.  In  Mat- 
thew v.,  4,  Jesus,  however,  rises  to  a  spiritual  height 


140  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

above  the  prophet.  Matthew  v.,  5,  is  of  higher  spirit- 
ual significance  than  the  Psalm  quoted,  which  had  a 
temporal  and  historical  sense.  Jesus'  meaning  is  that 
the  meek  are  the  ' '  heirs  of  the  spiritual  privileges  of 
God's  kingdom."  The  promise  of  Matthew  v.,  8,  that 
the  pure  in  heart  shall  ' '  see  God  ' '  is  far  more  forceful 
and  significant  than  the  words  of  the  Psalmist.  While 
we  have  here  the  use  of  scriptural  terms  and  teachings 
by  Jesus,  they  gain  for  him  a  transformed  meaning  and 
he  puts  a  more  spiritual  content  into  them. 

The  Cry  o?i  the  Cross. 

In  the  crucifixion  scene  Matthew  and  Mark  represent  Jesus 
as  uttering  a  cry  of  suffering  in  the  words  of  Psalm  xxii.,  2  (1). 

Psalm  xxii.,  2—"  My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken 
me?" 

Matthew  xxvii.,  46— Identical  with  the  Hebrew. 

Mark  xv.,  34— Identical  with  the  Hebrew. 

The  texts  have  several  variant  readings  in  Matthew. 
In  Mark  there  are  also  a  considerable  number  of  vari- 
ants in  the  different  texts.  The  words  are  transliterated 
from  Aramaic  versions.  In  rendering  the  Greek,  Mat- 
thew and  Mark  correspond  fairly  to  the  Septuagint. 

Various  writers  have  as  variously  treated  this  pas- 
sage. On  the  one  hand,  it  has  been  excluded  as  the 
interpolation  of  a  Gospel  writer  in  the  interest  of  literal 
fulfilment  of  Old  Testament  prophecy;  on  the  other,  it 
has  been  interpreted  as  of  great  significance,  by  an  op- 
posite school,  that  seeks  to  find  this  very  sort  of  use  of 
prophecy  in  Jesus  himself. 

There  is,  to  be  sure,  no  doubt  that  the  accounts  of 
the  close  of  Jesus'  life,  his  passion,  and  resurrection, 
have  been  legendarily  embellished.  It  is  probable  that 
the  descriptions  of  natural  phenomena,  the  opening  of 


The  Use  of  Prophetic  Phrases     141 

the  tomb,  the  darkness  over  the  land,  are  such  embel- 
lishments. There  is  a  great  deal  of  symbolism  in  all 
these  accounts,  and  they  are  no  doubt  magnified.  Just 
as  true  is  it  that  these  writers  are  interested  to  adapt 
these  significant  incidents  in  the  life  of  Jesus  to  pro- 
phecy. The  later  writers  found  these  adaptations  very 
largely  in  the  Book  of  Psalms.  This  Psalm  in  particu- 
lar was  used  as  containing  definite  and  detailed  predic- 
tions, especially  describing  the  crucifixion,  the  piercing 
of  the  hands  and  feet,  and  the  parting  of  the  garments 
by  lot.  While,  of  course,  we  might  class  the  passage 
we  are  discussing  under  this  head,  we  may  just  as  well 
say  that  it  was  Christ's  own  use  of  it  which  suggested 
its  further  use  to  the  apostolic  writers. 

As  a  matter  of  fact  we  have  found  in  our  discussion 
that  perversions  of  Jesus'  actual,  definite  sayings  occur 
rarely,  if  at  all.  We  have  here,  moreover,  an  instance 
where  the  probabilities  seem  to  be  against  the  disposi- 
tion of  this  as  an  arbitrary  insertion  of  the  Evangelists. 
It  is  hardly  such  a  citation  as  they  would  select.  It 
was  a  cry  which  would  seem  to  warrant  the  taunt  it 
elicited,  "  L,et  him  deliver  him,  if  he  love  him."  It  is 
certain  that  this  difficulty  was  appreciated,  and  that  it 
was  considered  an  offence  to  utter  such  a  cry,  admitting 
desertion  by  God  ;  for,  in  the  Gospel  of  Peter,  e\i  is 
rendered  rj  dvva/M?  jaov,  as  if  from  a  similar  Hebrew 
word  meaning  ' '  strength. ' '  Possibly  this  difficulty  ac- 
counts for  the  omission  in  L,uke. 

Another  objection  raised  against  its  genuineness  is 
that  in  an  hour  of  distress  Jesus  would  not  have  been  in 
condition  to  remember  an  Old  Testament  passage.  This 
objection  is  groundless  when  we  consider  the  natural- 
ness and  spontaneity  of  Old  Testament  language  on  his 
lips.     He  probably  did  not  think  of  this  special  Psalm 


i42  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

at  the  moment.  While  thus,  however,  we  do  not  deem 
the  reasons  urged  against  its  genuineness  as  sufficient 
for  its  rejection, we  must  at  the  same  time  exclude  that 
unnatural  and  forced  interpretation  which  gives  it  sig- 
nificance as  a  cry  selected  by  Christ  on  account  of  its 
Messianic  meaning.  Tholuck  holds  that  in  this  cry 
Christ  makes  a  typical  reference,  attributes  to  Christ  a 
recognition  of  the  Psalm  as  typifying  him,  and  thinks 
he  definitely  chose  these  words  because  of  such  a  typi- 
cal Messianic  reference.  He  says,  "  With  the  recol- 
lection of  these  words,  a  consciousness  of  their  typical 
character  had  been  present  at  the  same  time."  But  in 
addition  to  the  fact  that  this  would  be  a  use  of  pro- 
phecy which  we  do  not  find  to  be  characteristic  of 
Christ,  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  if  it  were,  Jesus 
would  in  this  hour  of  supreme  agony  be  concerned  as 
to  the  choice  of  a  cry  which  would  be  a  proof  of  his 
Messiahship  as  predicted  in  the  Old  Testament.  This 
is  an  arbitrary  and  forced  interpretation  as  unnatural  as 
it  is  unnecessary. 

That  Jesus  uttered  a  cry  of  suffering  is  recorded  in 
all  three  Gospels.  Matthew  and  Mark  agree  that  he 
used  the  language  of  this  Psalm.  Luke  (xxiii.,  46), 
corresponding  to  a  second  cry  represented  by  Matthew 
and  Mark,  records  that  he  "  cried  with  a  loud  voice," 
and  that  he  uttered  scriptural  words  of  a  different  char- 
acter, cited  from  Psalm  xxxi.,  5:  "Into  thy  hand  I 
commend  my  spirit."  While  such  a  sentiment,  ex- 
pressed in  the  scriptural  language,  might  well  have 
been  uttered  by  Christ,  it  is  possible  that  Luke  substi- 
tutes it  for  the  other,  on  account  of  the  difficulty  we 
have  alluded  to,  in  attributing  the  latter  to  Jesus. 

The  words  uttered  by  Jesus,"  My  God,  my  God,  why 
hast  thou  forsaken  me,"  were  a  human  and  natural 


The  Use  of  Prophetic  Phrases     143 

cry  of  suffering.  Probably  not  altogether  of  physical 
suffering — although  we  are  not  to  forget  that  Jesus  was 
a  man,  with  human  susceptibilities,  and  that  physical 
suffering  was  combined  with  the  suffering  of  rejection 
by  those  whom  he  loved  and  would  have  saved.  We 
need  not  regard  this  as  the  despairing  cry  of  one  who 
had  lost  hope.  God  is  still  "  his  "  God.  This  cry  was 
in  keeping  with  the  scene  in  the  Garden,  where  he 
prayed  that,  if  possible,  the  cup  might  pass  from  him. 
The  realm  of  Old  Testament  language  being  one  in 
which  he  moved,  it  was  most  natural  that  his  prayer  for 
strength  should  be  scripturally  phrased.  His  prayer  in 
Gethsemane  was  so  worded.  His  was  the  feeling  of 
the  great  reformer  who,  as  he  stood  in  view  of  the  rule 
of  unrighteousness  in  a  world  of  slavery,  cried  in  the 
words  of  the  Psalmist,  "How  long,  O  L,ord,  how  long." 
(Psalm  vi.,  3.)  Jesus'  words,  then,  are  not  to  be  taken 
as  the  despairing  cry  of  a  lost  cause,  still  less  as  a  de- 
tailed selection  in  proof  of  his  Messiahship,  but  in  the 
light  of  a  prayer  to  his  heavenly  Father  for  His  presence 
in  an  hour  of  need,  natural^  uttered  in  scriptural 
language. 

Jesus'  Use  of  the  Book  of  Daniel 

Jesus  shows  a  remarkable  familiarity  with  the  Book 
of  Daniel.  This  Book,  recalling  the  last  great  heroic 
period  of  Jewish  history,  was  doubtless  one  widely  used 
in  Jesus'  time.  Of  course  it  needs  to  be  remembered 
that  the  language  which  Jesus  uses  might  indicate,  not 
entirely  a  reliance  on  Daniel,  but  may  be  due  to  the 
Apocalyptical  style  of  his  time.  And  yet  his  depend- 
ence on  this  Book  seems  certain. 

We  have  already  spoken  of  the  use  of  the  figurative 
language  of  Daniel  iv.,  12,  in  Mark  iv.,  32,  and  parallels, 


144  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

and  the  possible  reference  to  Daniel  ii.,  34,  35,  and  ii., 
44,  45,  in  Luke  xx.,  18.  We  saw  several  instances 
where  there  was  possible  dependence  on  the  language 
of  Daniel.  In  Luke,  x.,  20,  there  is  a  like  figure  to 
that  in  Daniel  xii.,  1.  In  John  v.,  29,  we  have  the 
language  of  Daniel  xii.,  2;  in  Luke  xix.,  43,  similarity 
to  Daniel  xi.,  15;  and  in  Matthew  xiii.,  43,  what  is 
practically  a  quotation  from  Daniel  xii.,  3.  Jesus  fre- 
quently refers  to  the  way  in  which  Israel  had  treated 
the  prophets,  just  as  Daniel  does  in  his  prayer,  Daniel 
ix.,  6.  Other  instances  of  this  kind  might  be  noted. 
But  in  all  these  cases  the  use  is  merely  that  of  lan- 
guage. The  chief  use  of  the  language  of  this  Book  is 
found  in  the  so-called  Apocalyptical  discourses  of  Jesus, 
and  it  will  be  of  interest  to  see  just  how  Jesus  uses  the 
words  of  the  ' '  prophet ' '  Daniel  in  these  discourses. 

The  Apocalyptical  Discourses 

In  the  discourses  contained  in  Matthew  xxiv.,  Mark 
xiii.,  and  Luke  xvii.  and  xxi.,  there  are  a  large  num- 
ber of  scriptural  references,  freely  cited  in  the  main. 
Among  the  nearest  to  a  direct  and  verbal  citation  is 
that  in  Matthew  xxiv.,  15,  in  Mark  xiii.,  14,  and  in 
Luke  xxi.,  20,  from  Daniel  ix.,  27,  xi.,  31,  xii.,  11 

Hebrew — Daniel,  ix.,  27:  "and  upon  the  wing  of  abomina- 
tions shall  come  the  desolator." 

Septuagint — "  and  upon  the  temple  shall  be  the  abomination 
of  desolations." 

Mark  xiii.,  14—"  But  when  ye  see  the  abomination  of  desola- 
tion   ..." 

Matthew  xxiv.,  15 — Identical  with  Mark. 

Luke  does  not  contain  this  citation,  but  has  "  and 
when  ye  shall  see  Jerusalem  compassed  with  armies, 
then  know  that  the  desolation  thereof  is  nigh." 


The  Use  of  Prophetic  Phrases     145 

The  words  "  spoken  of  by  Daniel  the  prophet"  are 
very  likely  an  insertion  by  the  writer  of  the  first  Gos- 
pel, in  accordance  with  his  custom  of  supplementing 
Jesus'  words,  for  re-enforcement  and  explanation,  by 
connecting  them  directly  with  the  Old  Testament.  In- 
fluenced by  the  Septuagint,  he  also  refers  it  definitely 
to  the  "  Holy  Place,"  while  Mark  has  "  where  it  ought 
not."  In  view  of  the  variance  in  all  three  Gospels,  it 
is  impossible  to  determine  the  original  form.  The 
writer  of  the  first  Gospel  evidently  misunderstood  the 
prediction  of  Jesus.  In  Markxiii.,  14,  and  Iyuke  xxi., 
7,  it  is  referred  to  the  destruction  of  the  temple.  Mat- 
thew, however,  adds  and  substitutes  in  xxiv.,  3,  "of 
thy  coming  and  of  the  end  of  the  world,"  thus  convert- 
ing the  request  into  one  for  information  concerning  the 
Messianic  coming,  the  end  of  the  age,  and  concerning 
the  age  to  come.  This  explains  this  evident  reference  to 
the  event  asa"  fulfilment "  of  the  words  in  Daniel, 
juke's  account  is  late,  written  probably  after  the  event. 
The  form  of  the  quotation  is  doubtless  best  preserved  in 
Mark.  The  phrase, ' '  let  him  that  readeth  understand, ' ' 
is  evidently  an  insertion.  This  is  a  clear  example  of 
the  way  in  which  the  writers  inserted  comments  into 
Jesus'  discourses,  in  such  a  manner  as  to  make  them 
appear  to  later  readers  as  a  part  of  Jesus'  words. 

Thus  the  phrase  quoted  by  Christ  is  not  a  formal 
citation  of  Daniel,  but  merely  a  borrowing  of  the  pro- 
phetic language  and  imagery,  suggested  by  the  simi- 
larity of  occasion.  The  description  in  Daniel  is  that  of 
the  destruction  of  the  temple  in  the  time  of  Antiochus 
Kpiphanes.  Jesus  is  here  foretelling  the  destruction 
of  the  temple  and  of  Jerusalem.  His  clear  eye  saw  the 
"  signs  of  the  times."  He  foresaw  what  the  Roman 
fortress  side  by  side  with  the  temple  signified;  and  he 


146  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

also  foresaw  that  the  coming  event  would  be  of  great 
significance  in  the  propagation  of  his  Gospel.  It  is  as 
if  he  would  say,  "  When  ye  see  Jerusalem  as  in  the 
days  of  the  Syrian  invasion,  know  then  that  the  events 
of  which  I  speak  are  at  hand." 

In  Markxiii.,  19,  Matthew  xxiv.,  21  (L,uke  xxi.,  22) 
we  have  a  similar  instance  of  the  borrowing  of  language 
from  Daniel  xii.,  1. 

Daniel  xii.,  1:  ".  .  .  there  shall  be  a  time  of 
trouble,  such  as  never  was  since  there  was  a  nation 
even  to  that  same  time." 

Mark  xiii.,  19:  "  For  those  days  shall  be  tribulation 
such  as  there  hath  not  been  the  like  from  the  beginning 
of  the  creation  which  God  created  until  now,  and  never 
shall  be." 

Matthew  xxiv.,  21:  ".  .  .  for  then  shall  be  great 
tribulation,  such  as  hath  not  been  from  the  beginning 
of  the  world  until  now,  no,  nor  ever  shall  be." 

L,uke  xxi.,  22:  "  For  these  are  days  of  vengeance 
that  all  things  which  are  written  may  be  fulfilled. ' ' 

Luke  xxi.,  22,  can  hardly  refer  to  a  fulfilment  of  the 
prophecy  of  Daniel,  for  L,uke  does  not  seem  to  quote 
or  refer  to  the  Daniel  passage.  It  probably  refers  to  a 
general  fulfilment  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  contains 
an  abundance  of  such  passages.1  In  these  cases  we 
have  again  a  mere  borrowing  of  scriptural  phraseology. 

In  Mark  xiii.,  24,  Matthew  xxiv.,  29,  I^uke  xxi.,  26, 
in  the  prediction  describing  the  coming  events  under 
the  figures  of  the  darkening  of  the  sun  and  moon,  the 
falling  of  the  stars,  and  the  shaking  of  the  powers  of 

Compare  the  Septuagint  of  Deut.  xxxii.,  35,  Hosea  ix.,  7, 
and  Jeremiah  v.,  29.  See  Jeremiah  1.,  31  (Heb.),  xxvii.,  31 
(Sept.).  See  also  Leviticus  xxvi.,  31-33,  Deut.  xxviii.,  49-57, 
Micah  iii.,  12,  Zechariah  xi.,  6,  and  Daniel  ix.,  26,  27. 


The  Use  of  Prophetic  Phrases     147 

heaven,  we  have  the  use  of  imagery  borrowed  from 
such  passages  as  Daniel  viii.,  10,  Joel  ii.,  10,  iii.,  15, 
16,  Isaiah  xiii.,  10,  xxiv.,  23,  xxxiv.,  4,  Ezekiel 
xxxii.,  7,  Amos  v.,  20,  viii.,  9,  Zephaniah  i.,  15,  and 
Haggai  ii.,  6-23.  In  Mark  xiii.,  26,  Matthew  xxiv., 
30,  L,uke  xxi.,  27,  and  also  Mark  xiv.,  62,  Matthew 
xxvi.,  64,  Luke  xxii.,  69,  describing  the  coming  of  the 
Son  of  Man  in  his  glory,  we  have  the  use  of  apocalypti- 
cal imagery  from  Daniel  vii.,  13,  "  Behold,  there  came 
with  the  clouds  of  heaven  one  like  unto  a  son  of  man."  ■ 

The  questions  which  concern  us  here  are:  1.  Are 
these  genuine  utterances  of  Christ,  in  whole  or  in  part  ? 
2.  If  so,  to  what  do  they  refer  ?  3.  What  is  the  nature 
of  their  relation  to  the  Old  Testament  passages  ? 

The  fact  that  they  are  in  part  utterances  of  Jesus 
seems  sufficiently  attested  by  the  fact  that  the  first  and 
third  Evangelists  agree  in  ascribing  to  Jesus  a  predic- 
tion of  the  last  things  which  were  to  precede  the  com- 
ing of  the  Son  of  Man,  and  that  these  were  given  with 
some  detail.  That  we  can  form  any  precise  estimate  as 
to  their  form  or  any  certain  conclusion  as  to  their  defi- 
nite meaning  is  improbable.  The  accounts  do  not  en- 
tirely agree  as  to  setting,  nor  in  the  rendering  of  the 
sections  of  the  discourse.  All  three  agree,  however, 
in  connecting  it  with  the  conversation  concerning  the 
temple.  And  they  do  agree  in  the  main  picture,  which 
represents   Jesus    as  predicting  a  great  catastrophe, 

1  For  other  points  of  connection  between  these  chapters  and 
the  Old  Testament  compare : 

Matthew  xxiv.,  7,  Mark  xiii.,  8,  Luke  xxi.,  10,  with  Isaiah 
xix.,  2. 

Matthew  xxiv.,  10,  with  the  Septuagint  of  Daniel  xi.,  41. 

Matthew  xxiv.,  31,  with  Isaiah  xxvii.,  13. 

Mark  xiii.,  12,  with  Micah  vii.,  6. 

Luke  xxi.,  24,  with  Zechariah  xii.,  3,  and  Isaiah  lxiii.,  18. 


148  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

which  actually  occurred.  It  seems  probable  that  we 
have  collected  here  a  series  of  fragments  combined 
probably  with  some  ungenuine  material. 

To  what  did  Jesus'  prediction  relate  ?  If  these  sec- 
tions are  to  be  interpreted  as  a  prediction  of  the  final 
judgment  and  of  his  immediate  second  coming,  after  the 
historical  catastrophe  which  he  predicts,  then  we  must 
exclude  them  as  absolutely  incongruous  with  the 
teaching  of  Christ  that  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  within 
men;  that  it  was  to  come  without  observation;  that  it 
was  to  be  "  first  the  blade,  then  the  ear,  then  the  full 
corn  in  the  ear."  Even  in  one  of  these  sections  we 
have  the  statement  in  Matthew  xxiv.,  14,  that  {<  This 
Gospel  of  the  Kingdom  shall  be  preached  in  the  whole 
world  for  a  testimony  unto  all  the  nations,"  before  the 
end  should  come.  Jesus  had  taught  all  along  the 
theory  of  a  gradual  development,  And  we  cannot  be- 
lieve that  at  the  time  of  these  discourses  he  completely 
reversed  his  whole  former  teaching.  Hence  if  we  must 
see  here  (1)  a  prediction  of  the  destruction  of  the  temple 
and  of  Jerusalem,  and  (2),  co-ordinate  with  this,  a 
cataclysmal  representation  of  his  immediate  Messianic 
second  coming,  in  person;  we  shall  be  obliged  to  at- 
tribute it  to  some  one  else  than  to  Jesus,  and  incline 
towards  that  view  which  conceives  of  this  as  a  compila- 
tion of  some  sayings  of  Jesus  with  some  Apocalypse 
current  at  the  time  of  the  writing  of  the  Gospels,  into 
whose  mould  the  sayings  were  cast.  The  latter  is  the 
view  of  many  scholars.  But  such  a  view  has  what 
seems  to  us  the  insuperable  difficulty  of  accounting  for 
all  such  similar  passages,  found  in  other  connections, 
as  Luke  xi.,  49~53>  xiii->  35,  xvii.,  23,  xvii.,  37,  xix., 
43,  44,  Matthew  x.,  23,  25-31^".,  and  xxvi.,  64. 

Our  conclusion  is  a  mediating  one.     Doubtless  we 


The  Use  of  Prophetic  Phrases     149 

have  here  not  a  single  discourse  of  Jesus,  verbally  re- 
ported, but  a  compilation.  We  see  no  reason  to  doubt 
that  Jesus  would  use  such  imagery  as  is  here  borrowed 
from  Daniel.  The  picture  he  has  in  view  of  the  com- 
ing destruction  of  Jerusalem  may  naturally  have  re- 
called to  him  the  similar  destruction  predicted  in 
Daniel,  and  thus  suggested  the  language  of  the  pro- 
phet. It  is  not  unnatural  that  Jesus  should  describe 
so  portentous  an  event  with  such  vivid  language. 
But  this  does  not  mean  necessarily  that  he  would 
do  it  in  the  same  eschatological  sense  as  did  the 
Apocalyptists  of  his  time.  Indeed,  he  radically  de- 
parted from  that  view  of  the  all-evil  of  the  present  and 
the  only-good  of  the  future  age  which  was  their  con- 
ception. His  voice  is  one  of  hope  and  courage  for  this 
life.  The  Kingdom  of  God  was  within  men.  It  was 
now,  and  not  only  to  come.  With  regard  to  the  future, 
Jesus  did  not  know  the  day  and  the  hour  of  the  judg- 
ment.    Only  God,  he  said,  knew  that. 

But  that  Jesus  foresaw  that  with  the  coming  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem  and  of  the  temple  would  come  also 
the  opportunity  for  the  spread  of  his  Gospel  is  alto- 
gether probable.  Thus,  the  vivid  picture  of  the  com- 
ing of  the  Son  of  Man  means  the  coming  of  the  Kingdom 
of  his  truth  into  the  great  world  which  lay  outside  of  its 
prese?it  narrow  circle.  He  likens  the  great  political  dis- 
turbances which  he  foresees  to  the  warring  of  the  ele- 
ments as  figuratively  set  forth  in  Daniel.  He  likens 
the  coincident  victory  of  his  own  truth  to  the  coming  of 
the  Son  of  Man  in  power  and  glory.  The  moral  gran- 
deur of  the  events  is  fittingly  described  in  these  impres- 
sive terms.  Having  pictured,  in  the  language  of  the 
prophet,  the  collapse  of  the  old  order  in  the  destruction 
of  the  temple,  Jesus  pictures  the  coming  of  the  new  in 


150  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

similarly  striking  terms.  And  Jesus,  thus  seeing  and 
predicting,  saw  with  a  prophet's  eye  and  spake  with  a 
true  prophetic  voice.  His  prediction  was  fulfilled.  It 
all  came  to  pass  in  "  that  generation." 

The  use  of  this  prophetic,  or  apocalyptic,  language 
by  Jesus  is  not  out  of  harmony  with  the  passages  cited. 
In  Daniel,  the  teaching  is  of  God's  triumph  in  history, 
and  the  coming  of  His  Kingdom,  His  rule,  in  the  earth. 
The  main  point  of  Jesus'  teaching  is  the  same,  the 
triumph  of  truth,  his  truth,  God's  truth.  We  have  cor- 
roboration for  this  view  in  the  fact  that  the  writer  of  the 
third  Gospel  evidently  interpreted  all  this  as  picturing 
these  political  events.  This  interpretation  of  Jesus' 
description  of  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  Man  is  sup- 
ported by  other  similar  sayings.  In  the  words  of  Jesus 
before  the  High  Priest  at  his  trial  we  have  the  same 
idea  when  he  says,  "  Ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  Man  sitting 
at  the  right  hand  of  power,  and  coming  with  the  clouds 
of  heaven."  (Mark  xiv.,  62,  Matthew  xxvi.,  64,  L,uke 
xxii.,  69.)  Matthew  and  L,uke  have  "Henceforth  ye 
shall  see." 

Notice  that  I^uke  has  in  xxi.,  27,  corresponding 
with  the  other  two  Gospels,  "and  then  shall  they  see 
the  Son  of  Man  coming  in  a  cloud  with  power  and 
great  glory."  Again  Jesus  adds  (xxi.,  31),  "  when  ye 
see  these  things  coming  to  pass,  know  ye  that  the  King- 
dom of  God  is  nigh."  Thus  the  coming  of  the  Son  of 
Man  is  equivalent  to  the  establishment  of  the  Kingdom 
of  God,  a  great  moral  consummation,  the  victory  of 
truth.  The  paraphrase  given  by  Professor  Stevens 1  is 
as  follows :  ' '  You  must  suffer  in  my  cause  ;  renounce 
the  world  ;  but  this  you  may  well  do  since  thereby  you 
will  gain  my  salvation;  if  you  fail,  you  will  be  disap- 
1  The  Theology  of  the  New  Testament,  page  151. 


The  Use  of  Prophetic  Phrases     151 

proved  at  the  Judgment ;  to  such  failure  you  will  be 
tempted  by  my  death  and  the  apparent  defeat  of  my 
work,  but  I  tell  you  that  some  of  you  will  live  to  see 
my  kingdom  triumph."  Jesus  refers  to  a  passage  in 
Daniel  which  there  denotes  the  establishment  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God  and  of  His  saints,  in  the  place  of  tem- 
poral power.  He  adopts  this  figurative  expression  to 
predict  the  victory  of  his  truth,  the  consummation  of 
God's  will  and  kingdom.  The  same  view  is  expressed 
in  Matthew  xvi.,  28,  "  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  there  be 
some  of  them  that  stand  here  which  shall  in  nowise 
taste  of  death,  till  they  see  the  Son  of  Man  coming  in 
his  kingdom." 

We  are  enabled  thus  to  deny  those  charges  of  fanatical 
delusion  which  represent  Jesus  as  predicting,  in  these 
passages,  his  own  personal,  immediate  coming,  a  pre- 
diction which  would  stand  in  contradiction  to  the  whole 
drift  of  his  teaching.  We  see,  not  that  Jesus  was 
blinded,  but  that  his  disciples  misunderstood  and  mis- 
interpreted his  sayings.  The  apocalyptical  language 
was  not  unnaturally  used  by  Jesus.  In  fact,  he  fre- 
quently used  Daniel,  and  borrowed  his  most  frequent 
designation  of  himself  from  this  book.  Jesus'  use  of 
the  Old  Testament  here  is  like  that  found  elsewhere. 
We  have  found  him  borrowing  the  striking  terms  and 
language  of  the  prophets,  and  using  them  to  set  forth 
his  own  teachings,  both  when  the  older  teaching  had 
spiritual  affinity  with  his  own,  and  when  it  was  found 
necessary  to  put  into  it  a  higher  spiritual  content.  So 
here  he  borrows  the  sublime  apocalyptical  language  of 
his  time  to  set  forth  an  equally  sublime  teaching.  Luke 
x.,  18,  has  a  similar  use. 

Jesus'  use  of  this  apocalyptic  Book  was  mainly  a  bor- 
rowing of  its  striking  figures  and  imagery.     Doubtless 


152  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

he  was  not  uninfluenced  by  the  common  use  of  apoca- 
lypse in  his  time,  although  he  uses  it  sparingly  and  not 
at  all  in  the  literally  eschatological  sense  of  the  apoca- 
lyptists  of  his  age.  It  is  difficult  to  discover  any  inner 
connection  between  the  teachings  of  Daniel  and  those 
of  our  Lord.  Indeed  he  was  not  in  sympathy  with  the 
general  world- view  as  contained  in  this  Book.1  We 
shall  discuss  the  use  of  the  term  Son  of  Man,  which 
some  hold  that  Jesus  obtained  from  Daniel,  a  little  later 
on. 

While  it  is  not  at  all  unlikely  that  in  some  cases,  such 
as  we  have  thus  far  cited  in  this  chapter,  the  likeness 
is  merely  coincidental;  there  yet  seems  to  be,  in  this 
correspondence  of  prophetic  teaching  and  prophetic 
language,  a  striking  evidence  of  Christ's  remarkable 
familiarity  with  the  Scriptures,  and  particularly  with 
the  prophets.  Doubtless  many  of  the  terms,  phrases, 
and  figures  were  current  in  Jesus'  time;  were  a  part  of 
its  vernacular.  But  we  see  that  Jesus'  use  of  the  pro- 
phets was  not  "  that  of  the  scribes."  We  see  nothing 
of  that  particularism,  that  literalism,  that  pointing  to 
the  letter  which  characterized  contemporary  Jewish 

1  The  reader  will  do  well  to  consider  the  interpretations  of 
these  discourses  in  the  following  works  : 

Gilbert—  The  Revelation  of  Jesus,  chapter  vii. 

Stevens—  The  Theology  of  the  New  Testament,  chapter  xii. 

Weiffenbach—IViederkunfisgedanheJesu,  pages  135  ff. 

Holtzmann — Neutest.  Theologie,  i.,  327. 

Haupt— Die  eschatalogische?i  Aussagen  Jesu,  pages  21  ff, 

W  eiss— Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament, 

Beyschlag — New  Testament  Theology. 

Wendt— Teaching  of  Jesus. 

Also  an  article  on  "The  Apocalyptic  Teaching  of  our  Lord," 
by  Rev.  H.  Kingman,  in  The  Biblical  World,  March,  1897. 


The  Use  of  Prophetic  Phrases    153 

teachers.  Everything  in  the  Old  Testament  was  not 
alike  to  him.  He  evidently  had  a  predilection  for  the 
prophets.  Among  them  he  chose  largely  Isaiah,  Eze- 
kiel,  Jeremiah,  and  Daniel.  This  choice,  as  in  the  case 
of  his  direct  citations,  was  partly  on  account  of  the  bold 
and  striking  language  of  these  prophets,  and  partly  on 
the  basis  of  spiritual  affinity.  He  moves  in  the  realm 
of  prophetic  teaching  regarding  God,  man,  and  the 
world.  Many  of  the  figures  were  used  doubtless,  homi- 
letically,  to  attract  attention.  His  hearers  would  be 
attracted  by  a  striking  text,  hoping  for  some  new  in- 
terpretation. While  Jesus  freely  used  other  portions  of 
Scripture,  including  the  Wisdom  Literature  and  the 
Law,  his  use  of  prophetic  language  is  most  frequent. 
His  use  of  all  this  striking  Old  Testament  imagery  is 
entirely  free  and  independent  of  the  application  of  the 
passage  in  late  Judaism.  He  rests,  not  on  the  Old 
Testament  of  his  day,  but  on  the  Old  Testament  itself. 

OI,D  TESTAMENT  TERMS 

"  The  Sou  of  Man  "  and  "  The  Kingdom  of  God1* 

We  have  already  seen  that  Jesus  used  with  frequency 
terms  which  evidently  came  to  him  from  the  prophetic 
writings.  One  of  these  was  the  term  ' '  Son  of  God, ' '  but 
its  use  as  a  distinct  title  was  seldom  if  ever  adopted  by 
Jesus  himself  and  so  we  need  not  discuss  it.  But, 
among  all  these  adaptations  from  Old  Testament  lan- 
guage and  conceptions,  we  have  two  especially  signifi- 
cant terms.  Jesus  designates  himself  as  ' '  the  Son  of 
Man"  and  his  preaching  and  teaching  is  about  what 
he  calls  "  the  Kingdom  of  God."  We  shall  only  dis- 
cuss these  terms  sufficiently  to  get  some  idea  as  to  how 


154  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

far  he  was  dependent  on  the  Old  Testament  ideas  in- 
volved in  these  two  phrases  for  his  own  conception. 
Various  scholars  have  as  variously  interpreted  the  con- 
tent of  these  two  terms  in  Jesus'  mind.  A  brief  discus- 
sion may  suffice  to  indicate  whether  or  not  Jesus  was 
dependent  on  the  Old  Testament  use  for  the  terms,  the 
nature  of  this  dependence,  and  the  amount  of  freedom 
and  independence  in  his  use  of  them. 


"  The  Son  of  Man" 

Among  the  many  varying  views,  the  following  are 
the  main  ones: 

i.  Many  scholars  hold  that  the  term  is  derived  from 
Daniel  vii.,  13,  14,  and  that  Jesus  uses  it  in  a  Messianic 
sense.  Of  those  who  hold  this  view  some  would  say 
that  Jesus  used  it  as  if  its  use  in  Daniel  were  Messianic. 
Others  hold  that  Jesus  merely  borrowed  the  figure  and 
used  it  independently  of  its  meaning  in  Daniel. 

2.  Some  hold  that  it  was  used  by  Jesus,  as  it  is  in 
Daniel,  as  a  symbol  of  Kingdom  and  Kingship. 

3.  Some  scholars  conclude  that  he  did  not  derive  it 
especially  from  Daniel,  but  rather  from  its  general  Old 
Testament  usage,  as  in  the  Book  of  Kzekiel,  where  it 
means  simply  "  man."  Of  those  who  hold  this  view, 
some  think  that  he  meant  "  The  Man,  of  men,"  by  ex- 
altation and  pre-eminence.     Others  would  put  stress  on 

*  *  man ' '  rather  than  on  the  article. 

4.  Lietzmann  holds  that  it  could  have  meant  nothing 
else  than  "  man,"  and  that  the  translation  should  be 
simply  avdf)GD7toS  or  o  avQpoonoz. 

5.  Still  others,  admitting  that  it  means  only  "the 
man,"  would  not  admit  that  Jesus  merely  uses  it  gen- 


The  Use  of  Prophetic  Phrases     155 

erically,  but  hold  that  he  does  use  it  as  a  significant 
self-designation. 

The  term  is  found  not  only  in  Daniel,  but  in  Ezekiel 
and  in  the  Psalms. 

With  regard  to  its  use  in  the  Book  of  Daniel,  Stanton 
says: 

"  The  vision  of  c  One  like  unto  a  Son  of  Man '  in  the  seventh 
chapter  has  been  supposed  by  some  even  of  those  who  are  ac- 
customed to  view  Messianic  prophecy  in  relation  to  its  historical 
development,  to  have  referred  directly  from  the  first  to  the 
Messiah.  But  it  is  to  be  observed,  in  the  first  place,  that  the 
context  supplies  an  interpretation  of  the  vision,  which  suggests 
that  for  the  seer  and  his  contemporaries  the  vision  was  an 
idealized  representation  of  the  final  bestowal  of  glory  and  power 
on  Israel  restored  and  purified,  the  glorified  human  form  stand- 
ing for  Israel  as  animal  forms  stood  for  the  heathen  powers."  ' 

It  seems  quite  certain  that  it  was  not  considered 
Messianic  until  Christian  times. 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  term  o  v wS  rov  avdpoo- 
7iov  does  not  occur  in  the  Epistles,  nor  among  all  the 
varied  designations  applied  to  Christ  in  the  Book  of 
Revelation.  In  the  Synoptists  the  term  occurs  thirty 
times  in  Matthew,  fourteen  in  Mark,  and  twenty-five 
in  Iyuke;  in  all  sixty-nine  times.  When,  however,  we 
remove  the  duplicates,  it  occurs  only  thirty-five  separate 
times.  Furthermore,  in  only  eight  of  these  instances 
is  it  found  in  all  three  Gospels.  On  four  occasions  it 
occurs  in  Mark  and  Matthew;  one  in  Mark  and  Iyuke; 
seven  in  Matthew  and  L,uke;  eight  only  in  Matthew, 
and  seven  only  in  L,uke.  Hence  the  phrase  is  not  so 
frequent  in  Christ's  utterances  as  it  might  seem.  It 
is  also  significant  that  Jesus  alone  uses  it.     The  writers 

1  The  Jewish  and  the  Christian  Messiah,  page  109. 


156  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

themselves  never  use  the  term.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  Evangelists  conceived  of  it  in  a  Messianic 
sense.  It  is  so  used  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  where  it 
occurs  eleven  times.  In  some  of  the  Synoptic  passages 
where  it  is  used,  the  passages  are  evidently  secondary. 

We  need  to  remember  that  Jesus  spoke  in  Aramaic 
and  that  our  Greek  translation  does  not  give  us  the  ex- 
act title  as  he  used  it.  The  Aramaic  term  would  prob- 
ably be  tftW  *D,  which  it  is  generally  agreed  meant 
11  man,"  or  "  the  man." 

It  is  certain  that  the  Gospel  writers,  and  others  in 
early  Christian  times,  possibly  some  before  Christ,  had 
seen  in  the  ' '  Son  of  Man ' '  in  Daniel,  a  prediction  of 
the  Messiah.  But  it  is  just  as  certain  that  the  early 
Aramaic  expression  Ktttt  "D  never  developed  into  a 
Messianic  title,  although  its  later  Greek  equivalent  did. 

We  have  the  evidence  of  the  Gospels  themselves  that 
the  term  was  not  popularly  recognized  as  a  Messianic 
title  by  the  hearers  of  Jesus.  Our  Lord  himself  did  not 
openly  use  it  as  a  Messianic  title.  The  fact  that  even 
his  disciples  did  not  so  understand  it  is  plainly  evident 
from  such  a  question  as  this:  "  Whom  say  ye  that  the 
Son  of  Man  is  ?  "  which  would  have  been  meaningless 
if  the  term  involved  the  declaration  of  his  Messiahship. 
Looking  aside  for  a  moment,  from  the  question  as  to 
whether  Christ  did  use  it  as  a  definite  title  or  not,  there 
are  some  places  where  vio?  tov  avSpoonov  is  used  as 
meaning  simply  "  man."  Such  an  example  we  have 
in  Mark  ii.,  28,  which  has  its  real  significance  only 
when  we  read  "  the  sabbath  was  made  for  man,  and 
not  man  for  the  sabbath,  wherefore  man  is  lord  also  of 
the  sabbath. ' '  There  are  some  other  cases  where  it  ap- 
pears to  mean  "  man,"  but  in  direct  reference  to  him- 
self, as  the  typical  or  ideal  man. 


The  Use  of  Prophetic  Phrases     157 

Removing  all  these,  however,  there  remain  some  in- 
stances where  the  title  seems  to  be  a  special  self-desig- 
nation not  referring  especially  to  his  humanity.  In 
these  cases,  the  idea  of  kingship  and  dominion  seems 
to  be  back  of  the  conception.  But  here,  as  we  saw  in 
our  discussion  of  the  apocalyptical  sections,  the  sense 
is  not  eschatological,  but  relates  to  the  victory  of  his 
truth  in  the  world. 

In  view  of  these  various  uses,  we  must  reject  those 
extreme  views  which  make  it  simply  a  synonym  for  the 
word  ' ■  man, ' '  in  all  cases ;  although  as  we  have  seen 
there  are  some  such  cases.  We  must  also  reject  that 
view  which,  based  on  the  vision  in  Daniel,  makes  it  a 
significant  Messianic  designation  by  Jesus.  We  deem 
it  probable  that  Jesus  did  not  derive  the  title  from  any 
special  passage  in  the  Old  Testament.  While,  on  the 
one  hand,  he  seems  to  have  used  the  term  in  a  symbolic 
sense,  somewhat  as  it  is  used  in  Daniel,  representing 
himself  as  the  bearer  of  the  message  proclaiming  the 
Kingdom  of  God;  on  the  other,  he  also  used  it  as  a  term 
signifying  his  humanity,  and  his  typical  humanity, 
more  as  it  is  used  in  Kzekiel. 

The  evangelical  writers  evidently  lost  view  of  this 
ideal  sense  in  which  Christ  used  it,  and  after  his  death 
being  convinced  that  he  was  the  Messiah,  they  carried 
out  the  identification  of  Messiahship  with  the  term 
11  Son  of  Man."  They  did  this  under  the  influence  of 
its  later  Messianic  significance  as  indicated  by  the  Book 
of  Enoch.  In  this  way  it  became  incorporated  into  the 
text  of  the  Gospels,  in  some  cases  as  a  title,  where  Jesus 
had  used  v ios  rov  avdpoD7tov  with  the  simple  meaning 
of  "man." 

We  can  see  here  the  free  hand  of  Jesus  in  his  use  of 
this  Old  Testament  term.     He  is  not  bound  by  its  use 


158  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

in  the  Old  Testament.  He  puts  new  content  into  the 
Old  Testament  form.  The  connection  of  thought  with 
its  use  in  Daniel  would  be  something  like  this:  He,  like 
the  man  in  the  vision  of  the  prophet,  comes  as  the 
bearer  of  the  Kingdom  of  God.1 

1 '  The  Kingdom  of  God ' ' 

We  hear  much  in  the  New  Testament,  especially  in 
the  Gospels  and  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  about  the 

1  For  a  more  complete  discussion  of  this  question  the  reader 
is  referred  to  the  following  works  : 

H.  Ivietzmann — Der  Menschensohn. 

J.  Estlin  Carpenter — The  First  Three  Gospels. 

Balden sperger — Das  Selbstbewusstsein  Jesu,  chapter  vii. 

Grau — Das  Sclbstbewusstsein  Jesu,  chapter  vi. 

Appel — Die  Selbstbezeichnung  Jesu  :  Der  Menschensohn. 

Boehmer — Reich  Gottes  und  Menschensohn  im  Buche  Daniel. 

Krop — La  Pensee  de  Jesus  sur  le  Royaume  de  Dieu,  pages 
n8#. 

Stalker—  The  Christology  oj Jesus,  chapter  ii. 

Gilbert—  The  Revelation  oj  Jesus,  pages  185^". 

Wellhausen— Is.  und  Jiid.  Geschichte,  Note  2d  Ed.,  chapter 
xxiii,  page  346. 

N.  Schmidt — "  Was  Kti>3  IS  a  Messianic  Title  ?  "  Journal  oj 
Biblical  Literature,  vol.  xv.,  1896,  parts  1  and  2. 

Wendt—  The  Teaching  of  Jesus,  English  translation,  vol.  ii., 
pages  139  ff. 

Beyschlag — New  Testament  Theology,  vol.  i.,  pages  60  ff. 
English  translation. 

Dalman — Die  Wortejesu,  u.  s.  w.,  Der  Menschensohn,  chap- 
ter ix.,  pages  191  ff. 

Stanton — The  Jewish  and  the  Christian  Messiah,  pages  239^. 

Weiss — Neutestamentliche  Theologie,  Sec.  16. 

Holtzmann — Neutestamentliche  Theologie,  pages  246-264. 

Stevens — The  Theology  of  the  New  Testament,  chapter  ix. 

Noesgen — Christus  der  Menschen-  und  Gottessohn. 

Bruce—  The  Kingdom  of  God,  chapter  vii. 


The  Use  of  Prophetic  Phrases     159 

Kingdom  of  God,  or,  as  Matthew  has  it,  the  Kingdom 
of  Heaven.  This  was  not  a  new  term.  John  the  Bap- 
tist, standing  within  the  portals  of  Judaism,  preached, 
saying,  ' '  The  Kingdom  of  Heaven  is  at  hand. ' '  Jesus 
began  his  preaching  with  a  like  call.  It  is  to  be  noted 
that  the  term  generally  given  in  Matthew  is  fiaffikeia 
tgdv  ovpavGov,  while  elsewhere  it  is  fiaaikzia  rov  Osov, 
It  is  evident  that  these  terms  are  synonymous.  As  to 
which  term  Jesus  used,  scholars  are  divided.  It  is  a 
question  which  rests  largely  on  the  relative  dates  of  the 
Gospels. 

Another  question  is  whether  the  term  pa6ikeia  is 
used  in  the  abstract  sense,  meaning  the  rule  of  God;  or 
the  concrete,  meaning  the  realm,  the  sphere  of  the  rule. 
The  word  itself  may  mean  either.  We  have  here  an 
Old  Testament  and  Jewish  term  adopted  by  Jesus.  The 
question  with  which  we  are  concerned  is,  How  far,  and 
in  what  way,  was  Jesus  dependent  on  its  original  Old 
Testament  and  Jewish  content ;  and  how  far  did  he 
transform,  set  aside,  and  develop  this? 

In  the  earlier  conception,  the  Kingdom  of  God  was 
practically  synonymous  with  the  Kingdom  of  Israel. 
It  was  something  present  as  well  as  future.  The  work 
of  the  Prophets  was  to  extend  this  rule  of  God.  By 
reason  of  the  nation's  loss  of  independence,  and  the 
rise  of  the  great  world-kingdoms,  the  idea  was  changed 
and  enlarged,  but  yet  without  giving  up  the  special 
kingship  of  Israel.  It  was  transformed  into  a  hope,  a 
hope  of  re-establishment.  It  had  two  aspects:  first,  it 
was  a  present  fact;  God  was  ruler;  but  second,  it  was 
yet  to  receive  its  full  manifestation  and  realization.  In 
the  later  Judaism  the  idea  of  the  Kingdom  as  one  to 
come  prevailed.  It  had  temporarily  been  given  to 
others  on  earth;  but  God  would  again  reclaim  it.    Thus 


160  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

there  grew  up  a  distinction  between  the  present  and 
the  future  kingdoms.  The  Kingdom  to  come  came  to 
be  conceived  of  as  a  divine,  miraculous  event  with  a 
fixed,  definite  time.  The  idea  came  to  have,  on  the  one 
hand,  an  eschatological,  transcendental  character;  and 
at  the  same  time  one  that  was  political  and  earthly.  In 
late  Judaism,  it  lost  much  of  the  spirituality  and  uni- 
versalism  of  the  older  prophetic  conception. 

The  phrase  itself  was  not  common  in  current  usage, 
and  occurred  scarcely  ever  in  a  Messianic  sense.  Its 
use  in  Jewish  literature,  in  the  main,  is  with  the  ab- 
stract sense,  the  idea  of  the  rule,  kingship,  and  dominion 
of  God.  It  is  probable  that  the  later  Messianic  sense 
of  D^Dty  r\1D^D  was  secondary  to  this. 

I^et  us  now  consider  Christ's  use  of  the  term.  Did 
he  use  Matthew's  "  Kingdom  of  Heaven,"  or  the  term 
of  the  other  writers,  "  Kingdom  of  God  "  ?  Some  hold 
that  he  used  both,  interchangeably  and  synonymously. 
Others  that  he  used  both,  each  involving  a  different 
idea.  The  rendering  which  Matthew  gives  is  that  of 
the  original  Hebrew  phrase  D^DtP  fil^D.  It  is  to  be 
noted  that  in  the  Psalms  of  Solomon,  which  is  the  best 
source  for  Jewish  ideas  of  the  time  of  Christ,  the  main 
thought  is  that  of  God  as  King,  a  monotheistic  confes- 
sion. While  we  cannot  decide  the  question,  we  may 
say,  in  any  case,  that  the  explanation  which  attributes 
to  Christ  the  use  of  the  term  ' '  Heaven ' '  because  he 
shared  the  Jewish  prejudice  against  uttering  the  divine 
name,  must  be  rejected.  Nor  does  it  seem  probable 
that  Jesus  would  use  the  two  terms  with  a  dif- 
ferent content  for  each.  The  textual  evidence  would 
seem  to  be  in  favor  of  the  term  "  Kingdom  of 
God." 

How  far  did  Jesus  put  the  Old  Testament  and  Jewish 


The  Use  of  Prophetic  Phrases     161 

content  into  the  term;  how  far  did  he  go  back  and  put 
into  it  the  prophetic  content;  how  far  did  he  put  into  it 
an  original  content  of  his  own  ?  .  It  seems  probable  that 
he  used  the  term  in  its  abstract  sense,  signifying  the 
rule  of  God.  In  this  he  seems  to  be  at  one  with  the 
Old  Testament  and  with  Judaism. 

Was  it  something  present  or  future  for  him  ?  To  the 
Jews  of  Christ's  time  the  Kingdom  meant  primarily  the 
Messianic  Kingdom,  which  was  something  chiefly  in 
the  future.  Some  have  held  that  here  Christ  was  at 
one  with  Judaism.  They  hold  that  he  uses  the  term 
mainly  in  an  eschatological  sense.  The  difficulty  in  re- 
gard to  such  a  view  is  that  it  involves  the  exclusion  of 
much  that  is  in  the  Gospels,  an  unnatural  interpreta- 
tion of  other  passages,  and  a  good  deal  of  inference  and 
conjecture.  Some  writers,  while  admitting  the  ethical 
element  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  hold  that  he  centred 
largely  on  the  eschatological  idea.  They  hold  that  his 
teaching  concerning  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  in  the  latter 
sense.  This  involves  a  certain  dualism  in  Christ's 
teaching  which  we  fail  to  find. 

It  seems  clear  to  the  present  writer  that  Jesus,  in 
choosing  between  the  two  conceptions  of  Judaism, 
chose  the  one  less  emphasized  in  Judaism,  and  that 
the  Kingdom  of  God,  with  him,  was  something  here 
and  now,  in  the  world,  within  men,  silently  and  slowly 
progressing.  He  had  also,  however,  the  idea  of  a 
future  revelation  and  realization,  which  would  be  the 
consummation  of  the  present  development  and  growth 
of  the  Kingdom.  But  he  was  mainly  concerned  with 
the  rule  of  God  as  something  universal  and  present. 
The  Kingdom  is  like  the  mustard  seed  and  leaven; 
it  is  the  rule  of  God,  quiet  and  progressive.  It  is 
like  the  seed  which  grew  while  the  man  slept.     The 


1 62  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

Parable  of  the  Tares  is  not  eschatological  in  its  sig- 
nificance.1 

The  Kingdom  or  rulership  of  God  appears,  in  the 
very  nature  of  things,  present.  In  saying  that  it  was 
11  at  hand,"  Jesus  was  not  altogether  at  variance  with 
the  older  use.  As  we  have  said  the  term  means  in  the 
Old  Testament  both  (i)  God's  rule,  and  (2)  Israel's 
rule.  With  Jesus  it  meant  only  the  former.  It  was  for 
him  the  present  reality  of  God  in  the  world.  In  mak- 
ing this  choice,  Jesus  sets  aside  the  particularism  of  the 
older  view,  and  applies  it  to  the  universal  life  of  men. 
To  some  extent,  this  is  a  return  to  the  prophetic  con- 
ception. But  Jesus  goes  beyond  the  prophets.  While 
the  prophets  called  primarily  to  the  nation,  and  con- 
ceived of  universal  salvation  only  as  coming  through 
Israel,  Jesus  appeals  primarily  to  the  individual,  and 
offers  the  benefits  of  the  Kingdom  to  those  who  have 
the  least  national  claim.  Sonship,  citizenship  in  the 
Kingdom,  does  not  consist  in  a  choice  that  has  anything 
to  do  with  national  prerogative,  but  which  depends  on 
character  and  life. 

Thus  we  see  that,  in  some  points,  Jesus  was  at  one 
with  the  Old  Testament  and  Judaism,  but  that  the  term 
gained  for  him,  in  general,  a  transformed  meaning. 
While  they  regarded  it  as  mainly  future,  secondarily 
present,  he  regarded  its  present  reality  as  the  funda- 
mental thing.  He  adopts  the  prevailing  Jewish  usage 
of  the  term  as  signifying  the  rule  of  God,  but  on  differ- 
ent grounds.  On  the  matter  of  its  pre-existence  he  is 
at  one  with  Judaism,  in  conceiving  its  only  pre-existence 
as  in  God  himself. 


1  On  the  significance  of  the  parables  in  this  connection,  see 
Jiilicher,  Die  Gleichnisreden. 


The  Use  of  Prophetic  Phrases     163 

There  is  an  obvious  difference  at  one  special  point. 
With  the  Jews,  and  in  the  Old  Testament,  it  meant  the 
displacing  of  the  worldly  kingdoms;  Jesus  taught  that 
its  citizens  were  to  render  to  Caesar  the  things  that  were 
Caesar's.  We  do  not  find  that  Jesus  had  any  commu- 
nity idea,  corresponding  to  the  Old  Testament  idea  of 
its  confinement  to  Israel.  Wherever  there  is  any  indi- 
cation of  such  in  Jesus'  words,  it  is  merely  a  description 
of  the  condition  of  things  under  the  rule  of  God.  We 
have  seen  that  where  he  makes  a  direct  return  to  the 
prophetic  ideal,  he  makes  this  his  starting-point  and 
goes  far  beyond  the  prophets.  The  likeness  between 
the  conception  of  Jesus  and  that  of  the  Old  Testament 
and  Judaism  is  only  at  those  points  where  there  is 
ethical  and  spiritual  affinity  between  the  two.  His 
variance  is  at  those  points  which  would  preclude  the 
spiritual  and  ethical  character  of  the  Kingdom  of  God.1 
Thus,  in  the  use  of  both  of  these  terms,  the  Son  of 
Man,  and  the  Kingdom  of  God,  we  find  Jesus  depend- 
ent on  the  Old  Testament  and  prophetic  conceptions, 

1  With  regard  to  the  linguistic  use  of  the  term,  the  reader  is 
especially  referred  to  Dalman,  Die  Worte  fesu,  u.  s.  w.  While 
Dalman,  in  his  literary  treatment  of  the  question,  is  by  no 
means  the  best  authority,  his  contribution  to  the  linguistic  dis- 
cussion of  the  question  is  of  great  value. 

See,  also : 

Issel — Die  Lehre  vom  Reiche  Gottes  im  N.  T. 

t\\\ViS—Jesu  Lehre  vom  Reiche  Gottes. 

J.  Weiss— Die  Predigt  Christi  vom  Reiche  Gottes. 

Stevens — Theology  of  the  New  Testament,  chapter  iii. 

Beyschlag— New  Testament  Theology. 

Wendt — The  Teaching  of  Jesus. 

Weiss— Biblical  Theology  of  the  N.  T. 

Bruce — The  Kingdom  of  God. 

Board  man — The  Kingdom  of  God. 


1 64  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

and  yet  free  from  their  limitations.  He  here  views  the 
prophets  with  the  eye  of  the  spirit,  disregarding  the 
local  and  national  form.  He  borrows  the  terms,  and 
vitalizes  them  with  his  own  living  truth  which  he  uses 
them  to  express. 


CHAPTER  V 

some;  ai^usions,  by  jesus,  to  the;  prophejts  and 
to  prophecy 

IN  a  number  of  instances,  we  have  various  allusions 
by  Christ  to  the  prophets  and  to  prophecy,  which 
we  shall  now  discuss,  to  see  what  light  may  come  from 
them  as  to  how  Jesus  regarded  prophecy.  In  Matthew 
v.,  17,  we  have  the  significant  words,  "  Think  not  that 
I  came  to  destroy  the  Law  or  the  Prophets;  I  came  not 
to  destroy  but  to  fulfil,"  and  in  verse  18,  "  For  verily 
I  say  unto  you,  Till  heaven  and  earth  pass  away,  one 
jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in  nowise  pass  away  from  the  Law \ 
till  all  things  be  accomplished."  In  Luke  xvi.,  16,  17, 
we  have,  "  The  Law  and  the  Prophets  were  until  John; 
from  that  time  the  gospel  of  the  kingdom  of  God  is 
preached,  and  eve^  man  entereth  violently  into  it.  But 
it  is  easier  for  heaven  and  earth  to  pass  away,  than  for 
one  tittle  of  the  Law  to  fall. ' '  Matthew  has  the  first  half 
of  this  (Luke  xvi.,  16)  differently  worded  in  Matthew 
xi.,  12,  13,  in  connection  with  Jesus'  eulogy  of  John 
the  Baptist.  Luke's  connection  is  poor,  and  we  should 
consider  Luke  xvi.,  16,  as  a  parallel  to  Matthew  xi.,  12, 
13,  and  Luke  xvi.,  17,  as  a  parallel  to  Matthew  v.,  18. 
Of  course  the  significance  of  these  passages  depends 
on  the  content  of  the  word  c<  fulfil."  We  have  already 
seen  that  the  meaning  of  this  word  cannot  be  narrowed 

165 


166  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

down  to  an  accomplishment  of  detailed  prediction.  We 
shall  discuss  its  general  use  at  the  close  of  our  entire 
investigation.  In  this  case,  however,  it  is  plainly  evi- 
dent that  Jesus  could  not  mean  one  thing  in  the  case 
of  the  Law  and  another  in  the  case  of  the  Prophets.  It 
is  noticeable  that  Matthew  has  sgo£  olv  narra  yeri]rai. 
We  might  naturally  expect  the  verb  7r\r}pooo  here.  It 
may  be  that  Matthew  has  purposely  softened  a  saying 
about  the  Law  in  particular.  In  any  event  the  mean- 
ing is  the  same  as  in  verse  17,  where  7tkr)poQGai  is  used. 
Our  older  English  version  so  translated  Matthew  v.,  18. 
Though  not  so  exact  as  that  of  the  Revised  Version  it 
gave  the  sense  as  well  if  not  better.  One  thing  is  con- 
ceded everywhere,  that  is,  that  Jesus'  attitude  toward 
the  Old  Testament  Law  was  one  of  conscious  freedom 
and  criticism.  He  did  not  hesitate  to  abrogate  its  letter. 
He  valued  it  only  in  proportion  as  it  expressed  his  own 
spiritual  views.  Hence  his  ' '  fulfilment ' '  of  the  Law  is 
an  essential  and  not  a  literal  one.  No  one  could  be  dis- 
posed to  deny  this.  This  being  so,  the  meaning  here 
would  imply  a  conscious  freedom  as  to  the  Prophets  as 
well  as  to  the  Law.  Whatever  Jesus  meant  by  fulfil- 
ment of  prophecy,  would  apply  equally  to  the  Law. 
What  he  means  is  this.  While  he  seems  to  be  abrogat- 
ing the  Law,  and  sometimes  the  Prophets,  by  his  radical 
departures,  he  is  really  fulfilling  their  spirit  and  ideal. 
He  realized  indeed  that  very  often  the  breaking  of  the 
letter  was  absolutely  necessary  for  the  preservation  of 
the  spirit.  Viewing  fulfilment  in  this  light  he  could 
go  on  and  say,  even  of  the  Law,  that  not  one  of  the 
least  of  its  commands  could  be  broken,  but  that  men 
must  do  and  teach  them  (Matthew  v.,  19). 

It  was  in  just  this  sense  that  Jesus  used  the  term 
"  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,"  in  other  instances.     In 


Allusions  to  the  Prophets         167 

Matthew  vii.,  12,  he  cites  the  Golden  Rule  as  the  sum 
of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets;  again  in  Matthew  xxii., 
40,  he  says  that  on  the  love  for  God  and  neighbor 
"hangeth  the  whole  Law  and  the  Prophets."  He 
means  here  the  whole  moral  drift,  the  spiritual  ideal  of 
the  Law  and  the  Prophets.  We  have  the  same  thought 
in  Matthew  xiii.,  17,  "  For  verily  I  say  unto  you,  that 
many  prophets  and  righteous  men  desired  to  see  the 
things  which  ye  see,  and  saw  them  not ;  and  to  hear  the 
things  which  ye  hear,  and  heard  them  not."  Luke  x., 
24:  "  For  I  say  unto  you,  that  many  prophets  and 
kings  desired  to  see  the  things  which  ye  see,  and  saw 
them  not ;  and  to  hear  the  things  which  ye  hear,  and 
heard  them  not."  We  have  a  similar  passage  in  John 
viii.,  56,  "  Your  father  Abraham  rejoiced  to  see  my 
day,  and  he  saw  it,  and  was  glad." 

Jesus  represents  the  prophets  and  righteous  men  as 
longing  for  that  coming  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  of 
which  he  is  the  bearer.  Luke's  setting  of  the  passage, 
in  connection  with  the  mission  of  the  disciples,  is  the 
correct  one.  The  Gospel  they  are  to  preach  has  been 
the  great  ideal,  hope,  and  longing  of  the  ages  past.  In 
John  viii.,  56,  Jesus  represents  Abraham  as  the  friend 
and  desirer  of  truth  and  of  the  future  coming  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God.  He  rejoiced  in  the  hope  which  was 
realized  in  Jesus  Christ.  We  deem  the  idea  of  a  seeing, 
by  Abraham,  in  prophetic  hope,  more  natural  to  Jesus 
than  that  of  a  paradisaical  seeing.  Whatever  may  have 
been  the  conception  of  the  writer  of  the  fourth  Gospel, 
with  Jesus  the  idea  was  that  in  * '  his  day  ' '  was  realized 
Abraham's  ideal. 

We  have  a  saying  of  somewhat  similar  import  in 
John  v.,  45-47,  ".  .  .  there  is  one  that  accuseth 
you,  even  Moses,  on  whom  ye  have  set  your  hope.     For 


1 68  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

if  ye  believed  Moses,  ye  would  believe  me  ;  for  he  wrote 
of  me.  But  if  ye  believe  not  his  writings,  how  shall  ye 
believe  my  words?  "  What  Jesus  says  in  substance  is 
this:  You  profess  great  faith  in  Moses,  but  if  you  really 
believed  Moses,  if  you  saw  the  spiritual  significance  of 
Moses  and  his  system,  you  would  see  in  me  the  realiza- 
tion of  the  Mosaic  hope  and  ideal.  Jesus  represents  the 
teaching  of  Moses  as  in  such  spiritual  relation  to  his 
own  work  and  mission,  that  a  true  acceptance  of  the 
teaching  of  Moses,  which  would  involve  this  spiritual 
conception  of  it,  would  lead  them  to  accept  him  as 
the  ideal  of  the  Mosaic  hope  We  have  no  need 
to  hunt  out  some  particular  Messianic  passage  writ- 
ten by  Moses.  In  verse  47,  Jesus  speaks  of  Moses' 
"writings"  his  writings  in  general  as  containing  his 
hope  and  ideal. 

Again  in  John  v.,  37-40,  "  And  the  Father  who  sent 
me,  he  hath  borne  witness  of  me.  Ye  have  neither 
heard  his  voice  at  any  time,  nor  seen  his  form.  And 
ye  have  not  his  word  abiding  in  you;  for  whom  he  sent, 
him  ye  believe  not.  Ye  search  the  scriptures,  because 
ye  think  that  in  them  ye  have  eternal  life  ;  and  these  are 
they  which  bear  witness  of  me;  and  ye  will  not  come  to 
me,  that  ye  may  have  life."  Here  Jesus  rebukes  his 
hearers  with  a  failure  to  see  the  real  teaching  of  the 
Scriptures  which  they  searched  so  arduously,  and  in 
which  they  were  so  concerned  about  trifles  and  details, 
such  as  Davidic  relationship  of  the  Messiah,  that  they 
lost  the  real  truth  disclosed.  They  were  without  that 
inward  spiritual  apprehension  of  the  Old  Testament 
truth  which  would  have  led  them  to  him.  (John  xviii. , 
37.)  In  saying  that  the  Scriptures  bear  witness  of  him, 
Jesus  means,  according  to  the  whole  context,  that  the 
sum  and  drift  of  Scripture  teaching  was  such  that,  if 


Allusions  to  the  Prophets         169 

rightly  read,  it  would  lead  men  to  come  to  him  for  life. 
Its  ideal  was  expressed  in  him. 

The  whole  significance  of  these  passages  in  the  fourth 
Gospel  is  not  to  be  found  by  seeking  for  some  definite, 
particular  text  or  texts  which  may  be  found  to  have 
something  like  literal  correspondence  to  Jesus.  Indeed, 
this  is  the  very  "  search"  which  Jesus  condemned. 
The  idea  of  Jesus  was  that  he,  in  his  mission  and  teach- 
ing, was  in  spiritual  sympathy,  and  inner  agreement, 
with  the  revelation  in  the  Old  Testament. 

In  the  scene  of  his  apprehension  by  Judas,  when  one 
of  his  followers  used  violence  in  defence,  according  to 
the  first  Gospel,  Jesus  rebukes  him  and  says,  ' '  Think- 
est  thou  that  I  cannot  beseech  my  Father,  and  he  shall 
even  now  send  me  more  than  twelve  legions  of  angels  ? 
How  then  should  the  scriptures  be  fulfilled  that  thus  it 
must  be  ?  "  (Matthew  xxvi. ,  54. )  This  verse  is  pecu- 
liar to  Matthew.  L,ater  on,  however,  we  have  another, 
of  similar  import,  which  Jesus  addresses  to  his  captors. 
In  Matthew  xxvi.,  56,  it  reads,  "  But  all  this  is  come  to 
pass,  that  the  scriptures  of  the  prophets  might  be  ful- 
filled." Mark  renders  it,  "  but  this  is  done  that  the 
scripture  might  be  fulfilled."  I,uke  says  nothing  of 
the  fulfilment  of  Scripture.  In  place  of  this  he  has, 
"  but  this  is  your  hour,  and  the  power  of  darkness." 

It  is  very  significant  that  in  the  parallel  account  in 
John  (xviii.,  iff.),  although  it  has  allusions  to  scrip- 
tural fulfilment  made  by  the  writer  himself,  these  pas- 
sages do  not  appear,  and  when  Peter  smites  the  servant, 
Jesus  says,  in  place  of  Matthew's  "  How  then  should 
the  scriptures  be  fulfilled  that  thus  it  must  be,"  the 
very  different  words,  ' '  The  cup  which  the  Father  hath 
given  me,  shall  I  not  drink  it  ?  " 

The  passage  Matthew  xxvi.,  54,  is  in  a  section  (52-54) 


170  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

peculiar  to  Matthew.  This  passage  is  another  of  the 
first  Gospel's  frequent  editorial  insertions.  It  is  a 
parallel  instance  to  such  editorial  comments  as  we  have 
in  i.,  22,  ii.,  5,  ii.,  15,  ii.,  23,  iv.,  14,  15,  especially  xii., 
17^".,  xiii.,  34,  35,  and  the  expansion  in  xiii.,  14,  and 
xxi.,  4,  5.  This  is  a  part  of  the  writer's  own  frame- 
work into  which  his  narrative  is  sometimes  adjusted. 
The  record  of  these  last  days  is  full  of  similar  details, 
as  in  xxvii.,  9,  concerning  the  Messianic  price,  where 
the  whole  significance  of  the  matter  rests  on  a  mis- 
translation with  regard  to  the  potter's  field.  Matthew 
xxvi.,  54,  contains  the  writer's  words  and  not  those 
of  Jesus. 

With  regard  to  the  indefinite  Old  Testament  reference 
in  Mark  xiv.,  49,  and  parallels  we  have  singular  phe- 
nomena. Matthew  is  evidently  following  Mark  here, 
but  expands  considerably,  and  has  the  more  direct  ref- 
erence to  "  the  prophets,"  with  Isaiah  liii.  evidently  in 
mind.  Luke,  on  the  other  hand,  who  is  either  follow- 
ing his  own  independent  source,  or  is  supplementing 
Mark  by  it,  does  not  have  this  reference  to  prophecy, 
but  has  instead  ' '  this  is  your  hour  and  the  power  of 
darkness."  Still  more  significant  is  the  fact  that  the 
parallel  account  in  the  fourth  Gospel  does  not  have  the 
Old  Testament  reference.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  de- 
tailed character  of  the  record  in  John,  in  this  instance, 
gives  it  the  authority  of  an  eye  and  ear  witness.  Yet, 
although  he  has  set  this  record  into  a  framework  of  pro- 
phetic fulfilment,  he  does  not  attribute  these  words  to 
Jesus.  That  we  have  here  another  editorial  insertion, 
a  remark  by  the  writer  of  the  Gospel,  has  been  held  by 
most  scholars,  from  Erasmus  down. 

In  Mark  ix.,  12,  "  and  how  is  it  written  of  the  Son 
of  Man  that  he  should  suffer  many  things  and  be  set  at 


Allusions  to  the  Prophets         171 

nought? "  we  have  what  appears  to  be  another  expan- 
sion of  a  similar  character  to  the  last  one  we  considered. 
The  parallel  in  the  first  Gospel  has  simply  ' '  even  so 
(like  John  the  Baptist)  shall  the  Son  of  Man  also  suffer 
of  them."  Luke  does  not  record  this  particular  con- 
versation. The  reference  in  Mark  ix.,  12,  to  what  is 
"written"  is  evidently  a  later  insertion.  It  must  be 
remembered,  in  such  cases  as  this,  that  these  incidents 
as  we  have  them  related  here  were  later  recollections  of 
the  event,  and  as  so  conservative  a  scholar  as  Kder- 
sheim  says,  "we  may,  without  irreverence,  doubt 
whether  on  that  occasion  he  ( Jesus)  had  really  entered 
into  all  those  particulars."  ' 

In  Luke  xviii.,  31,  we  read  that,  a  short  time  before 
his  last  visit  to  Jerusalem,  "he  took  unto  him  the 
twelve,  and  said  unto  them,  Behold,  we  go  up  to  Jeru- 
salem, and  all  the  things  that  are  written  through  the 
prophets  shall  be  accomplished  unto  the  Son  of  Man," 
and  he  then  goes  on  to  give  the  details  of  the  treatment 
he  is  to  receive.  Passages  of  similar  import  are  Mat- 
thew xxvi.,  24,  Mark  xiv.,  21:  "The  Son  of  Man 
goeth,  even  as  it  is  written  of  him,"  which  however 
Luke  (xxii.,  22)  renders,  "as  it  hath  been  determined." 
There  are  great  difficulties  in  this  account  in  the  18th 
chapter  of  Luke.  As  Kdersheim  says,  the  fact  that, 
according  to  Luke  himself,  "  they  understood  none  of 
these  things,  and  the  saying  was  hid  from  them,  neither 
knew  they  the  things  which  were  spoken,"  and  the 
surprise  which  absolutely  overcame  them,  make  Kder- 
sheim's  conclusion  probable,  that  we  may  doubt 
whether  Jesus  entered  into  particulars  and  "  that  the 
Evangelists  report  what  Jesus  had  said  in  the  light  of 
after  events. ' '     In  any  event,  the  indefiniteness  of  the 

1  The  Life  and  Times  of  Jesus  the  Messiah^  vol.  ii.,  page  345. 


172  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

phrases,  "all  things  written  through  the  prophets," 
"as  it  is  written  of  him,"  "as  it  hath  been  deter- 
mined," could  only  indicate,  what  is  indeed  true,  that 
Jesus  did  regard  his  life  as  under  the  guidance  of  a 
divine  decree. 

The  passages  L,uke  xxiv. ,  25  ff. ,  and  44  ff.  un- 
doubtedly belong  to  a  late  tradition.  The  third  Gospel 
was  written  at  a  time  when  legend  and  tradition  had 
already  developed.  We  see  in  its  expansions  at  the 
beginning,  in  the  story  of  the  birth  and  infancy,  and  at 
the  end,  in  the  post-resurrection  appearances,  evidences 
of  this  influence.  These  indefinite  allusions  are  a  part 
of  the  consciousness  of  the  Church.  Whatever  value 
we  may  give  to  them,  the  attestation  of  detailed  his- 
toricity is  too  slight  to  admit  of  our  using  them  in  a 
discussion  of  the  actual  sayings  of  Jesus. 

The  Triumphal  Entry 

In  the  account  of  the  Triumphal  Entry  (Matthew 
xxi.,  i-n,  Markxi.,  1-11,  I^ukexix.,  29-44,  John  xii., 
12-19),  Jesus  is  represented  as  carrying  out  a  pro- 
gramme suggested  by  Zechariah  ix.,  9.  Mark,  the 
original  account,  merely  states  the  occurrence.  Mat- 
thew is  at  pains  to  explain  it,  and  adds,  "  Now  this  is 
come  to  pass,  that  it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was 
spoken  through  the  prophet,  saying, 

Tell  ye  the  Daughter  of  Zion, 
Behold,  thy  King  cometh  unto  thee, 
Meek,  and  riding  upon  an  ass, 
And  upon  a  colt,  the  foal  of  an  ass. ' ' 

Mark  and  L,uke,  supported  by  John,  mention  only  one 
animal,  but  Matthew,  misunderstanding  the  repetition 


Allusions  to  the  Prophets         173 

in  Zechariah,  which  is  merely  a  poetic  repetition,  finds 
need  of  two  animals,  and  so  in  his  narrative  he  actually 
supplies  one  in  order  to  make  the  event  square  with  his 
incorrect  reading  of  the  prophecy.  The  fourth  Gospel, 
like  the  first,  points  out  the  reference  to  prophecy,  but 
significantly  adds,  "  These  things  understood  not  his 
disciples  at  the  first, ' '  and  states  that  all  this  was  an 
afterthought.  It  would  seem  from  this  that  those  who 
beheld  the  scene  were  entirely  in  the  dark  as  to  any  pur- 
pose of  Jesus  formally  to  fulfil  a  prophecy  in  proof  of 
his  Messiahship.  And  naturally  enough,  for  there  is 
no  evidence  that  this  was  his  purpose. 

The  historicity  of  the  event  is  too  natural  and  too 
well-attested  to  be  called  in  question.  That  Jesus'  use 
of  the  colt  and  the  general  manner  of  his  entry  into  the 
city  had  any  relation,  in  his  mind,  to  the  prophecy  in 
Zechariah,  we  are  not  so  certain.  The  "  need"  (Mat- 
thew xxi.,  3)  which  Jesus  had  for  a  colt  was  just  as 
likely  to  have  been  physical  as  it  was  that  he  should 
make  an  entry  into  the  city  conformable  to  prophecy. 
John  says  that  it  was  not  so  conceived  at  the  time. 
And  neither  Mark  nor  Luke  had  arrived  at  any  such 
understanding. 

It  is  not  at  all  impossible,  however,  that  the  Old 
Testament  prophecy  may  have  suggested  it.  Zechariah 
ix.,  9-12,  contains  a  beautiful  picture  which  the  Evange- 
list has,  not  altogether  unfittingly,  applied  to  Jesus.  It 
presents  the  coming  king  of  Israel  as  clothed  with  hu- 
mility and  peace.  To  suppose,  however,  that  Jesus' 
action  was  grounded  merely  in  a  purpose  to  fulfil  a  pro- 
phecy is  unlike  anything  we  have  seen  in  him.  Any 
such  charge  made  against  him  would  weaken  the  very 
case  of  those  apologists  who  seek  to  find  correspon- 
dences between  prophecy  and  the  events  of  his  life. 


174  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

For  such  a  use  by  Jesus  would  show,  not  that  he  was 
the  Messiah,  but  merely  that  he  was  making  a  Messi- 
anic claim.  Bruce  says,  "  The  symbolical  act  was  of  a 
piece  with  the  use  of  the  title  '  Son  of  Man,'  shunning 
Messianic  pretensions,  yet  making  them  in  a  deeper 
way."  If  Jesus  performed  this  act  with  conscious 
reference  to  the  prophecy  in  Zechariah  it  was  not  as 
something  literal,  to  be  carried  out  in  proof  of  his  Mes- 
siahship,  but  was  an  acted  parable  to  illustrate  the 
character  of  his  Kingdom  as  one  of  humility  and  peace. 

The  Sign  of  Jonah  the  Prophet. 

In  Matthew  xii.,  38-42,  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  are 
represented  as  saying  to  Jesus:  "  Master  we  would  see 
a  sign  from  thee.  But  he  answered  and  said  unto 
them,  An  evil  and  adulterous  generation  seeketh  after  a 
sign;  and  there  shall  no  sign  be  given  to  it  but  the  sign 
of  Jonah  the  prophet." 

IyUke  represents  the  matter  somewhat  differently. 
He  says  (Luke  xi.,  29-32),  "  And  when  the  multitudes 
were  gathering  together  unto  him,  he  began  to  say, 
This  generation  is  an  evil  generation :  it  seeketh  after 
a  sign;  and  there  shall  no  sign  be  given  to  it  but  the 
sign  of  Jonah." 

We  have  still  another  account  in  Matthew  xvi.,  1-4, 
where  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  ask  a  sign  from 
heaven.  Jesus  rebukes  their  inability  to  discern  the 
4 '  signs  of  the  times  ' '  and  adds,  ' '  an  evil  and  adulter- 
ous generation  seeketh  after  a  sign;  and  there  shall  no 
sign  be  given  unto  it,  but  the  sign  of  Jonah." 

Mark  viii.,  11-12,  has  a  similar  instance  in  which  the 
Pharisees  try  Jesus  and  seek  a  sign,  and  Jesus,  deeply 
moved,  replies,   "  Why  doth  this  generation  seek  a 


Allusions  to  the  Prophets         175 

sign?  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  There  shall  no  sign  be 
give?i  unto  this  generation. ' ' 

A  comparison  of  the  two  passages  in  Matthew  (xii., 
38^".,  and  xvi.,  i  ff.)  indicates  quite  clearly  that 
xii.,  38^".  is  a  doublet.  Matthew  xvi.,  iff.,  and  Mark 
viii.,  11,  12,  have  similar  setting  for  the  incident,  fol- 
lowing the  account  of  the  miraculous  feeding.  L,uke 
(xi.,  29  ff.)  has  his  own  setting.  Textually  the  whole 
incident  is  full  of  difficulties.  We  note  especially  one. 
Mark  represents  Jesus  as  answering  that  ' '  There  shall 
no  sign  be  given  unto  this  generation  "  (Mark  viii., 
12).  But  Matthew  and  L,uke  represent  Jesus  as  saying, 
1 '  and  there  shall  no  sign  be  given  unto  it,  but  the  sign 
of  Jonah  "  (Matthew  xvi.,  4,  and  L,uke  xi.,  29).  It 
seems  evident  that  Jesus  did,  in  some  way  or  other, 
declare  that  his  sign  was  that  of  the  prophet  Jonah. 

Now,  as  to  the  interpretation  of  his  words:  Matthew, 
in  section  xvi.,  iff.,  offers  none.  L,uke,  however,  in 
the  corresponding  section,  does  give  one;  he  adds  (xi., 
30),  "  For  even  as  Jonah  became  a  sign  unto  the  Nin- 
evites,  so  shall  also  the  Son  of  Man  be  to  this  genera- 
tion." This  might  mean  most  anything,  and  whether 
it  be  a  parenthetical  insertion  by  the  writer  or  added 
words  of  Jesus  makes  little  difference. 

But  we  have  in  the  doublet,  Matthew  xii.,  3&ff.t  a 
very  explicit  explanation :  "for  as  Jonah  was  three  days 
and  three  nights  in  the  belly  of  the  whale;  so  shall  the 
Son  of  Man  be  three  days  and  three  nights  in  the  heart 
of  the  earth."  There  is  no  doubt  but  what  this  is  an 
inserted  explanation  of  a  writer  or  later  editor  of  the 
first  Gospel.  We  have  found  already  several  such.  It 
has  against  its  genuineness: 

1.  Its  general  improbability.  It  is  just  the  kind 
of  sign  that  Jesus  would  not  give.     He  had  steadily 


176  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

refused  to  give  miraculous  signs.  2.  It  is  unsupported 
by  both  Mark  and  l,uke.  3.  It  is  not  found  in  the  ac- 
count in  Matthew  (xvi.,  iff.)  of  which  this  is  a  mere 
doublet.  4.  It  interrupts  the  natural  connection  be 
tween  verses  39  and  41.  5.  But  more  important  than 
all,  it  is  denied  by  the  very  context.  Verses  41  and  42 
give  the  interpretation  of  Jesus'  words  :  ' '  The  men  of 
Nineveh  shall  stand  up  in  the  judgment  with  this  gen- 
eration, and  shall  condemn  it:  for  they  repented  at  the 
preaching  of  Jonah;  and  behold  a  greater  than  Jonah 
is  here.  The  queen  of  the  south  shall  rise  up  in  the 
judgment  with  this  generation  and  shall  condemn  it: 
for  she  came  from  the  ends  of  the  earth  to  hear  the 
wisdom  of  Solomon;  and  behold,  a  greater  than  Solo- 
mon is  here." 

Luke  has  this  same  commentary  in  a  slightly  trans- 
posed order.  Jesus,  in  speaking  of  the  sign  of  the  pro- 
phet Jonah,  makes  no  reference  to  Jonah's  experience 
in  the  belly  of  the  great  fish.  According  to  his  own  ex- 
planation of  it,  as  recorded  by  both  Matthew  and  L,uke, 
he  refers  to  Jonah's  preaching  to  the  Ninevites  and 
their  repentance  as  recorded  in  Jonah  i.,  2,  and  iii.,  5. 
The  "  sign  "  Jesus  gives  them  refers  to  his  preaching; 
it  is  a  preaching  of  repentance  like  that  of  Jonah  and 
indeed  of  the  prophets  in  general.  As  Holtzmann  re- 
marks, "  Allerdings  haben  auch  andere  Propheten 
Busse  gepredigt;  aber  aus  ihrer  Reihe  wird  Jonas  her- 
ausgegrifTen,  weil  de  Nineviten  Mt.  xii.,  41,  Z,c.  xi., 
32,  die  beschamende  Parallele  zu  der  gegenwartigen 
Generation  bilden  sollen.  Wunderbar,  wie  das  Auf- 
treten  eines  Gottesboten  in  der  heidnischen  Stadt  war, 
so  wird  die  Krscheinung  des  Messias  inmitten  dieser 
Generation  an  sich  schon  ein  6t}}xbiov  sein."  ' 
1  Holtzmann,  Handcommentar  zum  N.  T. 


Allusions  to  the  Prophets         177 

If  the  allusion  had  been,  as  Matthew  interprets  it,  in 
verse  40,  a  reference  to  Jesus'  coming  death  and  resur- 
rection, it  would  have  been  altogether  enigmatical  to 
Jesus'  hearers.  But  his  meaning  as  given  in  verse  41 
is  perfectly  clear  and  very  forceful.  The  sign  accord- 
ing to  Matthew's  interpretation  in  verse  40  would  have 
been  just  the  kind  of  sign  they  asked  for,  that  they 
were  always  asking  for,  but  that  he  as  steadily  refused 
to  give  them.  He  says  ' '  no  sign  (such  as  this  genera- 
tion asks  for)  shall  be  given  it;  but  I  will  give  it  a  sign, 
one  less  pleasing  to  its  mind,  the  sign  of  Jonah." 
Jesus  appears  among  them  as  a  preacher  of  judgment 
and  repentance,  sent  from  God,  just  as  Jonah,  a 
preacher  of  judgment,  was  a  sign  to  the  Ninevites.  We 
have  a  similar  case  in  John  vi.,  Z°ff-  There  the  Jews 
demanded  a  "  sign":  "  What,  then,  doest  thou  for  a 
sign,  that  we  may  see,  and  believe  thee  ?  what  workest 
thou  ? ' '  And  again  his  answer  is  that  he  gives  no  sign 
but  himself.  He  offers  his  own  person  and  his  work  as 
his  only  sign. 

As  Jonah,  a  preacher  of  judgment  and  repentance, 
was  a  sign  to  the  Ninevites,  which  they  heeded,  and 
which  led  them  to  repentance,  so  Jesus,  a  preacher  of 
judgment  and  repentance,  is  a  sign  to  this  generation. 
But,  to  emphasize  the  virtue  of  the  Ninevites  in  con- 
trast to  his  hearers'  own  wilfulness,  he  adds  that  these 
Gentiles  shall  even  rise  up  in  the  judgment  and  condemn 
them,  "  for  a  greater  than  Jonah  is  here."  The  wick- 
edness of  the  refusal  of  this  generation  to  repent  is 
multiplied,  for  while  these  ancient  Gentiles  repented  at 
Jonah's  preaching,  this  generation  refused  to  repent  at 
the  preaching  of  one  greater  than  Jonah. 

Still  more  is  involved  in  this  contrast.  The  ' '  sign  " 
is  one  which  indicates  the  universality  of  God's  grace. 


178  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

Even  the  despised  Gentiles  are  to  rise  and  condemn  the 
elect  Israelites  in  the  Judgment.  To  emphasize  this, 
Jesus  adds  another  instance  of  the  coming  of  the 
heathen  queen  to  listen  to  the  words  of  Solomon,  while 
the  ' '  elect ' '  of  this  generation  refused  to  listen  to  a 
greater  than  Solomon.  She,  too,  a  heathen  queen, 
with  the  heathen  Ninevites,  shall  rise  up  against  the 
Israel  of  this  generation  in  judgment.  This  univer- 
sality is  involved  in  the  ' '  sign ' '  of  repentance-preach- 
ing. The  ' '  sign  ' '  to  this  generation  is  that  the  nature 
of  God's  message  is,  Grace  through  repentance,  and 
not  grace  by  prerogative;  and  this  generation  will  do 
well  to  heed  this  sign.  The  substance  of  Jesus'  thought 
here  is  not  unlike  that  in  the  sermon  at  Nazareth  which 
we  discussed  in  Chapter  II. 


CHAPTER  VI 

JESUS'  VIEW  OF  PROPHECY;    HIS  CONCEPTION  OF*  IT; 
AND   HIS   RELATION  TO   IT.      HIS   IDEA 

OF  FULFILMENT 

JESUS  was,  himself,  first  of  all,  a  prophet.  Pro- 
phecy in  Israel  had  been  dead  for  a  long  time. 
Israel  had  again  and  again  sighed  for  the  return  of 
Elijah  and  the  prophets.  The  new  era  began  with  John 
the  Baptist.  He  was  the  Elijah  for  whom  Israel  had 
longed,  although  she  knew  him  not  when  he  came. 
Our  Lord  was  the  "  prophet"  like  unto  Moses  whom 
God  was  to  send.  (Deuteronomy  xviii.,  15;  Acts  iii., 
22,  and  vii.,  37).  The  nearest  relation  of  Jesus  to  the 
Old  Testament  prophets  was  that  of  succession.  His 
call  to  his  work  was  the  true  prophetic  call,  his  inspira- 
tion was  the  prophetic  type  of  inspiration,  taking  the 
latter  in  its  best  and  highest  sense.  It  is  interesting  to 
notice  that  this  prophetic  call  came  to  him  in  genuine 
prophetic  fashion.  If  one  will  compare  the  calls  of 
Samuel,  David,  Elisha,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  and 
others  of  the  prophets  he  will  see  likenesses  to  that 
of  our  Lord.  In  many  cases  it  consisted  of  announce- 
ment by  another  and  of  inward  consciousness  of  the 
prophetic  mission.  As  Samuel  ordained  David,  as 
Elijah  cast  his  mantle  on  Elisha,  so  Jesus'  formal  in- 
duction to  his  prophetic  office  was  at  the  hands  of  John 
the  Baptist  in  baptism. 

*79 


i8o  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

Samuel's  call  came  to  him  in  a  dream  as  he  lay  down 
to  sleep  in  the  temple  of  Jahwe;  Isaiah's  in  a  marvel- 
lous vision  in  the  Holy  Place.  So  to  Jesus,  as  he  comes 
forth  from  his  baptism,  the  call  comes  in  a  vision.  As 
the  voice  came  to  Isaiah,  bidding  him  go  forth  and 
speak  in  God's  name,  so  it  comes  to  Jesus:  "  he  saw 
the  heavens  rent  asunder,  and  the  Spirit  as  a  dove  de- 
scending upon  him  :  and  a  voice  came  out  of  the 
heavens,  Thou  art  my  beloved  Son,  on  thee  hath  my 
choice  (my  appointment)  fallen."  1 

The  prophetic  inspiration  came,  as  to  the  prophets  of 
old,  through  the  medium  of  the  Spirit,  and  in  a  vision. 
At  the  moment  of  his  call,  Jesus  formally  shares  the 
apostolic  succession  of  the  prophets  of  God. 

likewise  the  opening  message  of  our  L,ord's  ministry 
was  the  prophetic  message;  the  call  to  repentance  in 
view  of  the  nearness  of  the  Kingdom  of  God.  "  The 
time  is  fulfilled,  and  the  kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand: 
repent  ye  and  believe  in  the  Gospel."  (Mark  i.,  15.) 
He  takes  up  the  prophetic  message  of  John  the  Baptist. 
As  Wellhausen  says:  "  Er  trat  damit  nicht  als  Messias 
auf,  als  Krfuller  der  Weissagung,  sondern  als  Prophet; 
seine  Botschaft  war  anfanglich  selber  Weissagung." 
(/.  and  J .  Geschichte,  p.  374.)  He  took  his  standing 
place  upon  prophetic  ground.  He  refers  to  himself  as 
a  prophet.  In  Matthew  xiii.,  57,  he  applies  to  himself 
the  proverb,  ' '  A  prophet  is  not  without  honor,  save  in 
his  own  country  and  in  his  own  house."  His  mes- 
sengers, like  himself,  are  prophets,  and  are  to  "  rejoice 
and  be  exceeding  glad ' '  in  that  persecution  which  was 

1  Both  John  and  Luke  represent  this  as  an  objective  reality — 
John  explicitly  so ;  Luke  puts  it  in  realistic  form.  But  both 
Matthew  and  Mark  represent  it  as  a  vision  to  Jesus  alone,  as  it 
undoubtedly  was. 


Jesus'  View  of  Prophecy  181 

his  and  theirs,  "  for  so  persecuted  they  the  prophets," 
who  had  gone  before.  The  only  sign  he  will  give  is 
the  sign  of  the  prophet  Jonah,  *.  e. ,  the  preaching  of 
repentance  (I^uke  xi.,  29-32).  It  was  necessary  that 
he  should  go  up  to  the  Holy  City,  "  for  it  cannot  be 
that  a  prophet  perish  out  of  Jerusalem"  (I^uke  xiii., 
33).  He  predicted  that  there  should  come  after  him 
those  who  would  subvert  his  teaching  and  mislead  his 
followers ;  whom  he  designates  in  contrast  to  himself, 
as  '  ■  false  prophets. ' ' 

In  his  whole  work  and  teaching,  Jesus  recognized 
himself  as  a  prophet  and  as  a  successor  of  the  prophets. 
In  several  instances,  the  people  around  him  regard  him 
as  a  prophet,  and  do  so  by  his  own  consent. 

In  L,uke  vii.,  16,  the  people  say,  "  a  great  prophet  is 
arisen  among  us."  That  this  claim  was  made  for 
Jesus  by  his  friends  is  indicated  by  the  retort  of  his  ac- 
cusers to  Nicodemus,  "Search,  and  see  that  out  of 
Galilee  ariseth  no  prophet"  (John  vii.,  52).  The 
later  apostles  recognized  Jesus'  character  as  a  prophet. 
Peter  quotes  concerning  him :  '  *  And  it  shall  be,  that 
every  soul  that  shall  not  hearken  to  that  prophet,  shall 
be  utterly  destroyed  from  among  the  people."  The 
woman  of  Samaria  (John  iv.,  19)  and  the  blind  man 
to  the  Pharisees  declared,  "  He  is  a  prophet."  The 
multitudes  said,  "  This  is  the  prophet,  Jesus,  from 
Nazareth  of  Galilee"  (Matthew  xxi.,  11).  He  goes 
up  to  his  fate  at  Jerusalem,  and  in  view  of  his  coming 
death  he  mourns  over  the  Holy  City,  "  O  Jerusalem, 
Jerusalem,  which  killeth  the  prophets." 

This  aspect  of  our  lord's  work  has  often  escaped  at- 
tention. It  does  not  seem  that,  at  the  first,  he  had  full 
consciousness  of  his  Messiahship.  For  several  months 
he  pursued  his  way  much  as  the  older  prophets  had 


1 82  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

done.  At  first  lie  stood  side  by  side  with  John  the 
Baptist.  The  exigencies  that  called  forth  both  John 
and  Jesus  offer  parallels  to  the  older  prophetic  activity. 
It  was  an  anxious,  restless  time,  an  age  of  great  politi- 
cal and  religious  agitation.  For  two  hundred  years 
great  emergencies  had  risen  and  momentous  events  had 
followed  in  rapid  succession.  There  had  been  the  re- 
ligious persecution  under  Antiochus  Kpiphanes,  the 
Maccabean  uprising,  the  establishment  of  the  Hasmo- 
nean  kingdom,  its  weakening  through  embittered  party 
contests,  and  its  downfall  at  the  hands  of  Rome,  the 
return  of  foreign  lordship,  the  vain  but  unceasing 
attempt  to  cast  off  the  yoke,  and,  finally,  the  oppres- 
sive tyranny  of  the  great  Herod.  The  old  quiet  life, 
on  which  the  Theocracy  was  dependent,  was  gone. 
Through  the  Maccabean  wars  the  Jews  had  been  driven 
out  of  their  beaten  path  and  they  had  never  recovered 
it.  They  were  engaged  in  conflict  with  the  Romans 
and  the  great  question  on  all  thoughtful  minds  was, 
What  is  to  be  the  result  ?  It  was  j  ust  the  same  question 
which  had  pressed  itself  upon  Amos  and  Jeremiah  at 
the  threatened  conflict  with  the  Assyrians  and  Chal- 
deans. And  both  John  and  Jesus  answered  it  just  as 
the  two  older  prophets  had  done.  Jesus  saw,  in  ad- 
vance, the  inevitableness  of  the  destruction  of  the 
Theocracy.  The  prophecy  of  the  immediate  coming 
of  the  Kingdom  of  God  was  inseparable  from  the  pro- 
phecy of  the  immediate  destruction  of  the  temple  and 
the  Holy  City. 

In  our  previous  discussion  of  the  apocalyptic  dis- 
courses of  Jesus  we  saw  that  he  somehow  or  other 
identified  the  destruction  of  formal  Judaism  with  the 
spread  and  victory  of  his  own  truth.  The  Kingdom  of 
God,  in  the  minds  of  John  and  Jesus,  as  it  had  been  in 


Jesus'  View  of  Prophecy  183 

the  minds  of  the  prophets  of  old,  had  other  foundations 
than  the  temple,  the  Holy  City,  and  the  Jewish  people. 
Membership  in  it  is  individually  conditioned.1 

This  brief  survey  may  serve  to  indicate  what  we  have 
affirmed,  namely,  that  Jesus  was  called  forth,  like  John 
the  Baptist,  as  a  prophet,  to  do  the  work  of  a  prophet, 
to  meet  an  exigency  in  an  age  like  those  to  which  the 
Old  Testament  prophets  had  been  called.  They  both 
met  the  exigency  in  a  genuinely  prophetic  way.  Later 
on,  our  Lord  discovered  that  he  was  a  greater  than 
Jonah,  that  he  was  more  than  prophet ;  that  he  was 
priest  and  king.  Or  if  one  prefers  to  put  it  differently, 
later  on,  he  revealed  himself  as  more  than  a  prophet. 
But  at  the  beginning,  whatever  he  may  have  felt  re- 
garding his  own  mission,  he  spoke  and  taught  and  was 
received  as  a  prophet. 

Let  us  proceed  to  analyze,  a  little  more  closely,  Jesus' 
likeness  to  the  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament. 

A  study  of  the  life  of  Jesus  shows  his  affinity  with 
the  prophets  in  three  different  respects: 

1.  His  was  largely  the  prophetic  type  of  preaching 
and  teaching. 

2.  He  shared  the  prophetic  lot  and  fate. 

3.  His  work  was  like  that  of  the  prophets. 

1 .  Points  of  Contact  in  His  Preaching  and  Teaching 

Like  that  of  the  great  prophets,  his  was  a  preaching 
of  judgment  on  Judaism.  Compare  his  lamentation 
over  Jerusalem  in  Luke  xiii.,  34,  35,  with  those  words 
of  deep  regret  over  Israel's  rejection  of  her  God  in  Jere- 
miah xii.,  7.     On  the  occasion  of  his  entry  into  the 

1  See  Wellhausen,  Israelitische  undjudische  Geschichte,  page 
375  ff-i  fro11!  which  I  have  quoted  freely. 


1 84  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

Holy  City  (Luke  xix.,  41-44),  how  similar  is  his  lam- 
entation to  those  contained  in  Isaiah  xxix.,  3,  Hosea 
x.,  14,  and  xiii.,  16;  and  to  the  picture  of  Jerusalem 
forsaken  by  God  and  of  Israel  restored,  in  Ezekiel  viii., 
6,  and  in  chapters  x.  and  xi.  (Especially  Ezekiel  x., 
18,  19,  xi.,  19,  22,  23.)  Jesus'  prediction  of  the  fall  of 
the  temple  in  Mark  xiii.,  1,  2,  reminds  us  of  Micah  iii., 
12,  Jeremiah  xxvi.,  18,  vii.,  1-15,  xxvi.,  6-9.  Similar 
predictions  are  found  throughout  Isaiah.  Here  Jesus 
stands  with  the  boldest  of  the  prophets:  "  Destroy  this 
temple  and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it  up"  (John  ii., 
19).  Throughout  his  whole  teaching  we  find  this 
same  note  directed  against  the  false  security  of  Israel, 
just  as  it  was  a  dominating  note  in  the  old  prophetic 
message. 

More  marked,  perhaps,  than  anything  else  is  the 
likeness  between  his  teaching  and  the  prophetic  teach- 
ing with  regard  to  the  value  of  the  ethical  as  opposed 
to  the  ritual.  Like  the  prophets,  he  grounds  this  in 
his  conception  of  God.  We  find  many  parallels  here. 
We  have  discussed  at  length  his  quotation  in  Matthew 
ix.,  13,  xii.,  7,  from  Hosea  vi.,  6,  "  I  desire  mercy  and 
not  sacrifice."  In  Matthew  xii.,  6,  he  says  that  he  is 
greater  than  the  temple.  The  teaching  of  Matthew  v. , 
23,  24,  is  that  the  moral  must  precede  the  ritual  per- 
formance if  the  latter  is  to  have  any  value.  The 
natural,  moral  duty  of  man  outweighs  the  formally 
religious.  (Mark  vii.,  11.)  We  have  no  need  to  cite 
special  prophetic  references  on  this  point.  This  was 
a  fundamental  principle  and  is  found  in  the  prophets 
from  beginning  to  end.  Both  Jesus  and  they  were  ever 
pointing  away  from  forms  and  ceremonies  to  living 
realities. 

Jesus  is  at  one  with  the  prophets  in  his  universalism. 


Jesus'  View  of  Prophecy  185 

He  refers  to  Jonah's  preaching  to  the  Ninevites.  Be- 
cause these  repented  they  will  stand  in  judgment 
against  unrepentant  Israel.  So  will  the  Gentile  queen 
of  the  south  because  she  sought  the  truth.  In  his  fa- 
mous sermon  at  Nazareth,  in  his  preaching  concerning 
the  Grace  of  God,  he  illustrates  by  the  mission  of  Elijah 
and  Elisha  to  the  heathen  outside  of  Israel.  In  this 
sermon,  as  we  have  seen,  the  Evangelist  represents 
Jesus  as  declaring  at  the  very  opening  of  his  ministry, 
the  Grace  of  God  as  something  for  the  Gentiles.  In 
such  a  passage  as  L,uke  xiii.,  28,  29,  "  There  shall  be 
the  weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth,  when  ye  shall  see 
Abraham,  and  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  and  all  the  prophets, 
in  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  yourselves  cast  forth  with- 
out. And  they  shall  come  from  the  east  and  west, 
and  from  the  north  and  south,  and  shall  sit  down  in 
the  kingdom  of  God.  And  behold,  there  are  last  which 
shall  be  first,  and  there  are  first  which  shall  be  last," 
we  have  an  analogy  to  Malachi  i.,  11^.,  Isaiah  xlv.,  6, 
xlix.,  12,  lix,,  19,  and  numberless  others. 

In  Mark  xii.,  1-12,  he  anticipates  the  rejection  of 
himself  by  Israel,  and  the  acceptance  of  the  Gentiles, 
borrowing  a  parable  similarly  couched  from  Isaiah  v., 
1-7.  The  parable  of  the  Marriage  Feast  in  Matthew 
xxii.,  1-14,  and  of  the  Great  Supper  in  Luke  xiv., 
15-24,  present  this  same  prophetic  universalism.  In 
this  teaching  he  is  in  especial  sympathy  with  second 
Isaiah.  At  many  other  fundamental  points  his  teach- 
ing and  that  of  the  prophets  were  in  inner  sympathy. 
His  general  view  of  God  was  the  prophetic  view.  With 
his  view  of  the  Law  we  have  essential  and  substantial 
parallels  in  the  prophets.  Compare  his  view  of  fasting 
with  such  passages  as  Isaiah  lviii.,  3-7,  Zechariah  vii., 
5-10,  and  viiL,  19.     Note  how  similar  his  view  of  the 


1 86  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

Sabbath  is  to  that  found  in  such  passages  as  Isaiah  i., 
13,  14,  Amos  v.,  21-24,  and  Hosea  ix.,  5.  Again  and 
again  did  the  prophets  complain  that  Israel,  though 
she  kept  the  Sabbath  formally,  ' '  profaned  "  it  by  an 
unholy  life. 

In  our  previous  discussion  we  saw  that  with  both  the 
formal  observation  of  the  Law  was  without  value  un- 
less accompanied  by  an  ethical  observance .  That  the 
prophets,  like  Jesus,  grounded  the  Law  ethically,  is 
evident  from  such  passages  as  Hosea  vi.,  6,  Jeremiah 
vi.,  19,  20,  vii.,  21-23,  Micah  vi.,  6-8,  Amos  v.,  22-25, 
iv.,  4,  5,  Isaiah  i.,  11-17,  and  Hosea  viii.,  13.  Compare 
especially  Mark  xii.,  33,  34,  with  1  Samuel,  xv.,  25. 
With  regard  to  purifications  compare  the  saying  in 
Mark  vii.,  6,  7,  with  Isaiah  i.,  16.,  xxix.,  13,  and  lxiv., 
5.  With  regard  to  the  presence  of  God  in  the  temple, 
compare  Matthew  v.,  34,  and  xxiii.,  22,  with  Isaiah 
lxvi.,  1.  Notice  the  likeness  in  Jesus'  teaching  re- 
garding great  and  small  commands  in  Matthew  xxiii., 
23  (Luke  xi.,  42),  to  Micah  vi.,  8.  Read  the  section  on 
the  woman  taken  in  adultery  in  the  eighth  chapter  of 
John  and  then  read  Ezekiel  xxxiii.,  1-16.  His  teach- 
ing on  divorce  reminds  us  of  Malachi  ii.,  15,  16.  His 
estimate  of  the  temple  in  Mark  xi.,  17,  is  expressed  in 
the  words  of  Isaiah  lvi.,  7,  and  Jeremiah  vii.,  11.  We 
thus  have  a  great  many  points  of  contact  between  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  and  that  of  the  prophets.  And  yet, 
while  Jesus  makes  this  his  starting-point,  in  every  case 
he  goes  beyond  the  prophetic  idea.  But  in  all  his 
teaching  we  find  reminiscences  of  the  old  prophets. 
As  a  whole,  they  foreshadow  his  message.  And  this 
is  the  true  sense  in  which  we  are  to  look  for  Christ  in 
the  prophets.  They  give  expression  to  ideals  which  he 
took  up,  developed,  and  perfected. 


Jesus'  View  of  Prophecy  187 

2.  In  His  Sufferings  a?id  Lot 

Christ  shared  the  common  lot  of  the  prophets.  As 
his  message  was  like  theirs,  so  was  its  reception  and 
rejection.  In  Mark  vi.,  1-4,  as  a  prophet  he  is  rejected. 
In  Mark  iv.,  12,  he  speaks  in  parables,  "that  seeing 
they  may  see  and  not  perceive  ;  and  hearing  they  ma}' 
hear  and  not  understand  ;  lest  haply  they  should  turn 
again;  and  it  should  be  forgiven  them."  Here  he 
likens  himself,  his  commission,  his  message,  and  the 
manner  of  its  delivery  to  those  of  the  prophets.  (Isaiah 
vi.,  9,  10.)  In  this  instance,  like  Isaiah,  he  suffered 
disappointment  and  rejection.  Like  the  old  Israel  to 
whom  the  prophets  spake  (Isaiah  xxix.,  13),  so  the 
Israel  of  his  day  was  incapable  of  comprehending 
spiritual  worship.  (Mark  vii.,  6,  7.)  The  experience 
of  Jeremiah  (v.,  21)  was  the  same,  and  he  similarly  ex- 
pressed it.  The  picture  of  the  prophetic  servant  in  Isaiah 
liii.,  iff.,  was  applicable  to  Jesus  (Luke  xxii.,  37). 

It  is  very  natural  that  he  should  so  frequently  refer 
to  the  fate  of  the  prophets.  Again  and  again  he  refers 
to  his  opponents  as  stoners  and  killers  of  the  prophets. 
They  are  the  sons  of  them  that  "  slew  the  prophets." 
They  kill,  scourge,  crucify,  and  persecute  the  prophets. 
(Matthew  xxiii.,  34  ff.)  Jerusalem  is  mourned  over  as 
a  place  that  "  killeth  the  prophets."  (Matthew  xxiii-, 
37.)  Of  that  generation  would  be  required  "  the  blood 
of  all  the  prophets  which  was  shed  from  the  foundation 
of  the  world."  (Luke  xi.,  50.)  The  first  shall  be  last 
and  the  last  first  ;  they  shall  see  the  prophets  whom 
they  have  rejected,  inside  the  kingdom  of  God,  and 
they  themselves  cast  forth.     (Luke  xiii.,  2%ff.) 

Again  and  again  Jesus  shows  his  sympathy  with  his 
great  forerunners.     His  was  the  last  in  the  succession 


1 88  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

of  persecutions  which  they  had  suffered.  (Mark  xii., 
1-12.)  Like  every  prophet  of  every  age  Jesus  stood 
out  single-handed  against  his  age  and  against  the  rulers 
of  his  age.     Like  every  prophet  he  stands  alone. 

3.  In  His  Work 

Jesus  himself  declares  his  work  to  be  prophetic  in 
character.  When  the  disciples  of  John  the  Baptist 
come  to  him  (Matthew  xi.,  5)  he  gives  as  the  evidence 
of  his  authority  the  fact  that  he  executes  the  prophetic 
mission  as  set  forth  in  Isaiah  (xxxv.,  5,  6,  xxix., 
18,  19,  xlii.,  7),  giving  the  words  a  spiritual  sig- 
nificance. In  the  sermon  at  Nazareth  he  quotes  the 
words  in  which  the  older  prophet  had  announced  his 
mission,  as  applicable  to  his  own.  His  errand,  as 
stated  in  Luke  xix.,  10,  to  seek  and  to  save  the  lost,  is 
set  forth  in  the  terms  of  Bzekiel  xxxiv.,  16.  In  the 
tenth  chapter  of  John  he  likens  himself  to  the  good 
shepherd  of  Kzekiel  and  Zechariah.  It  is  to  be  noted 
here  that  wherever  he  cites  anticipation  of  his  lot  in  the 
prophets,  it  is  in  no  case  done  with  the  idea  that  his 
lot  is  determined  by  the  thing  written.  Carrying  for- 
ward, as  he  does,  the  work  of  the  prophets  to  comple- 
tion, his  work  naturally  has  like  results  to  theirs. 

We  saw  another  point  of  contact  in  the  manner  of  the 
delivery  of  his  message.  Like  the  prophets,  he  uses 
figurative  language,  appeals  to  nature,  employs  para- 
bles, and  even  performs  symbolic  actions. 

Compare  the  living  picture  recorded  in  the  Gospels, 
of  our  Lord,  indignant  and  wrathful,  entering  into  the 
temple,  armed  with  a  scourge  of  cords,  overturning  the 
tables  of  the  money-changers  and  the  seats  of  the  dove- 
sellers,  driving  them  all  forth  with  the  older  prophetic 
words  burning  upon  his  lips,  "  It  is  written,  my  father's 


Jesus'  View  of  Prophecy  189 

house  shall  be  called  a  house  of  prayer,  but  ye  have 
made  it  a  den  of  robbers,"  with  similar  graphic  pictures 
in  the  lives  of  the  prophets ;  with  that  of  Jeremiah 
standing  in  the  gate  of  Jehovah's  house,  boldly  accus- 
ing the  worshippers  of  lying,  oppression,  stealing,  mur- 
der, adultery,  false-swearing,  and  declaring  that  "  this 
house,"  which  is  called  by  Jehovah's  name,  is  become 
' '  a  den  of  robbers ' '  in  their  eyes. 

And  what  is  more  probable  than  that  this  bold, 
audacious  deed  of  Jeremiah  was  the  means  of  inciting 
the  still  bolder  deed  of  Jesus  ?  We  see  here  a  rising  of 
the  genuine  old  prophetic  spirit  in  Jesus'  breast.  It 
breaks  forth  at  other  times.  When  messengers  tell 
him  that  Herod  seeks  to  kill  him,  he  sends  back  a  bold 
fling  worthy  of  Elijah  or  Jeremiah,  "Go,  tell  that  fox." 
His  bold  answer  to  Pilate,  "  Thou  wouldest  have  no 
power  against  me,  except  it  were  given  thee  from 
above,"  sounds  like  many  a  prophetic  retort.  Time 
and  again  as  he  stands  before  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees 
he  reminds  us  of  the  older  prophets  as  they  stood  before 
the  priests  and  rulers  of  their  times.  He  rebuke's  in 
similar  terms  those  sins  of  Israel  which  had  marked 
her  whole  life. 

All  this  likeness  between  the  teaching,  the  mission, 
and  the  personal  experience  of  Jesus  and  those  of  the 
prophets  explains  his  frequent  citation  of  prophecy, 
his  references  to  it,  and  his  use  of  prophetic  language. 
We  shall  find  here  the  key  to  Jesus'  use  of  prophecy. 
If  the  reader  will  recall  our  previous  discussion  he  will 
see  that  this  has  been  the  nature  of  Jesus'  contact  with 
the  Old  Testament  prophetic  books.  We  shall  now 
proceed  to  draw  some  more  definite  conclusions,  in  the 
nature  of  a  summary  and  generalization  from  our  pre- 
vious discussion. 


190  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

Jesus'  Choice  and  Use  of  Prophecy 

We  have  already  called  attention  to  the  fact  that, 
with  the  whole  realm  of  the  Old  Testament  before  him, 
Jesus  chose  the  prophets.  A  very  large  proportion  of 
his  citations  are  from  them,  especially  from  those  with 
whom  he  is  most  in  sympathy.  Of  the  quotations 
cited  it  is  to  be  noted  that,  where  directly  traceable, 
nine  are  from  Isaiah,  one  from  Jeremiah,  one  from 
Micah,  one  from  Zechariah,  one  from  Malachi,  one 
from  Daniel,  one  from  Hosea,  and  three  from  the 
Psalms.  Where  the  quotations  are  used  with  reference 
to  their  actual  teaching  in  the  Old  Testament  prophecy, 
and  where  the  teaching  of  the  prophet  is  applied,  six 
are  from  Isaiah,  one  from  Jeremiah,  one  from  Micah, 
and  one  from  Hosea. 

We  find  Jesus  using  prophecy  in  a  variety  of  ways. 
In  almost  every  case  it  is  for  homiletical  purposes.  It 
is  for  this  purpose  that  he  borrows  its  language,  illus- 
trations, and  figures.  In  Mark  xii.,  2,  he  uses  familiar 
prophetic  language,  largely  to  attract  attention.  In 
Mark  xii.,  10,  11,  its  value  lies  chiefly  in  its  striking 
terms.  In  Mark  xiv.,  27,  he  borrows  mainly  the  pro- 
phetic language,  which  he  uses  in  a  different  way  from 
that  of  the  prophet,  using  it  as  one  would  a  current  pro- 
verb. Similarly,  in  Matthew  xi.,  23,  he  uses  it  with  no 
reference  to  its  original  setting,  as  one  would  borrow  a 
striking  figure.  In  Luke  xx.,  18,  he  again  uses  it 
merely  for  the  sake  of  the  figure.  His  use  in  Mark  iv., 
32,  is  similar  to  this.  Likewise  in  Luke  xxii.,  37,  he 
borrows  a  striking  saying  and  gives  it  his  own  inde- 
pendent application.  He  merely  uses  the  prophetic 
language  in  Mark  xiii.,  12,  without  any  special  refer- 
ence to  its  original  use.     John  vii.,  38,  is  a  mere 


Jesus'  View  of  Prophecy  19 r 

generalization.  In  many  of  the  cases  above  cited  there 
is  no  direct  connection  with  the  original  use  of  the 
language  in  the  place  from  which  it  is  quoted.  Jesus' 
use  is  best  explained  by  his  familiarity  with  the  pro- 
phetic vocabulary. 

In  many  cases,  the  quotation  is  evidently  recalled  by 
reason  of  similarity  of  situation  and  because  addressed 
to  a  similar  audience  to  that  of  the  prophet.  Such  in- 
stances are  Mark  iv.,  12,  xi.,  17,  xii.,  2ff.y  xii.,  10,  11, 
vii.,  6,  7,  Matthew  ix.,  13  (xii.,  7).  In  some  of  these 
cases,  similarity  of  teaching  also  suggested  the  use.  In 
Matthew  ix.,  13,  xii.,  7,  and  John  vi.,  45,  he  cites  the 
prophetic  teaching  as  authoritative,  and  gives  it  a  very 
direct  application  to  his  auditors  and  to  his  age. 

In  one  instance,  L,uke  iv.,  18,  19,  he  uses  the  passage 
as  the  text  for  a  sermon.  He  frequently  uses  prophecy 
to  refute  his  opponents  and  critics.  In  Mark  xii.,  36, 
37,  he  rebukes  their  literal  and  unspiritual  use  of  Scrip- 
ture in  their  application  of  it  to  the  Messiah,  condemn- 
ing them  by  Scripture  itself.  Again,  in  Matthew  xi., 
10,  he  denies  their  literalistic  idea  of  fulfilment.  He 
meets  their  objections  and  criticisms  by  citing  Scrip- 
ture to  them,  as  in  Mark  xii.,  10,  11,  where  he  answers 
their  question  as  to  his  authority  by  declaring  his  as 
the  authority  of  the  divine  messenger.  Other  instances 
are  Mark  vii.,  6,  7,  Matthew  xi.,  10,  and  John  x.,  34, 
in  the  latter  of  which  he  answers  their  objections  to  his 
calling  himself  the  Son  of  God.  How  frequently  he 
uses  the  argumentum  ad  hominent,  directly  applying 
Scripture  to  them,  as  in  Mark  iv.,  12,  and  vii.,  6,  7  ! 
He  does  this  less  directly  in  Mark  xii.,  2^".,  and  in  a 
somewhat  detailed  way  in  John  x.,  34,  but  while  in  this 
case  dialectical  he  is  not  sophistical. 

He  uses  a  great  deal  of  freedom  in  citing.     Many  of 


192  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

the  quotations  are  not  direct.  In  most  cases  they  were 
from  memory.  He  uses  composite  quotations,  double 
reference,  and  sometimes  seems  to  be  influenced  by 
verbal  suggestion.  In  one  instance,  John  vii.,  38,  he 
freely  quotes  a  passage  that  we  cannot  trace.  He 
sometimes  disregards  the  literal  tenor,  and  uses  the 
words  quoted  in  a  more  spiritual  sense  than  the  original, 
as  in  Iyuke  iv.,  18,  19.  Although  he  does  all  this  with 
a  free  hand,  and  uses  prophetic  language  and  figures 
sometimes  merely  for  their  own  sakes,  he  always  does 
it  with  entire  fitness.  His  comparison  of  John  the 
Baptist  to  Elijah,  in  Matthew  xi.,  10,  is  strikingly  apt. 
The  passage  Matthew  ix.,  13  (xii.,  7),  was  as  fitting  a 
text  as  could  have  been  chosen  at  the  moment.  Where 
he  makes  a  direct  application  of  prophecy  it  is  always 
with  reference  to  a  spiritual  truth.  In  Matthew  ix.,  13 
(xii.,  7),  he  quotes  the  statement  of  such  a  truth.  His 
quotation  in  Mark  iv.,  12,  teaches  the  necessity  of 
spiritual  discernment.  In  Mark  xi.,  17,  the  teaching 
is  that  of  the  sacredness  of  God's  house.  In  Mark  xii. , 
2ff.,  and  I^uke  xx.,  18,  he  gives  the  results  of  the  re- 
jection of  truth.  In  Mark  vii.,  6,  7,  his  quotation  em- 
phasizes the  need  of  inward  sincerity  in  worship.  In 
IyUke  iv.,  18,  19,  he  uses  the  prophetic  passage  to  de- 
scribe the  nature  of  his  divine  work  and  the  nature  of 
God's  Grace.  The  necessity  for  being  God-taught  and 
God-led  is  emphasized  by  the  use  of  the  passage  quoted 
in  John  vi.,  45. 

Applications  to  Himself 

When  we  come  to  those  passages  where  he  applies 
the  prophetic  words  in  any  sense  to  himself,  the  strik- 
ing thing  is  that  we  find  so  few  of  them.  We  have 
only  four  such  applications.     These  are,  Mark  xii.,  10, 


Jesus'  View  of  Prophecy  193 

11,  where  he  does  not  cite  the  passage  as  written  of 
himself,  but  uses  the  Old  Testament  figure  of  a  stone 
merely  by  way  of  analogy;  Luke  iv.,  18,  19,  where  pro- 
phetic words  are  used  partly  in  the  description  of  his 
mission  in  the  world,  but  mainly  as  indicating  the 
nature  of  the  Grace  of  God;  L,uke  xx.,  18,  where  a 
figure  is  borrowed;  and  Luke  xxii.,  37,  simply  an 
illustration.  We  find  nothing  at  all  of  a  detailed  and 
literal  application  of  Old  Testament  prophecy  to  him- 
self. In  none  of  these  four  instances  does  Jesus  in  any 
way  whatever  suggest  that  the  passages  had  anything 
to  do  with  him  in  their  original  meaning.  On  the  con- 
trary, we  have  two  emphatic  and  explicit  denials  of  the 
value  and  correctness  of  any  such  application  (Mark 
xii.,  36,  37,  Matthew  xi.,  10).  In  these  two  cases  he 
rebukes  the  detailed  application  of  Scripture. 

Standard  of  Value 

In  quoting  prophecy  Jesus  made  distinct  choice. 
That  choice  was  on  the  basis  of  spiritual  affinity.  He 
uses,  in  the  main,  and  where  he  directly  quotes,  pas- 
sages which  contain  great  principles;  truths  good  for  all 
time.  He  seeks  the  living  word  of  God  as  it  is  in  the 
prophets.  He  gives  to  prophecy  its  true  meaning  and 
significance.  He  does  not  aim  to  establish  any  literal 
connection  between  himself  and  prophecy,  or  indeed 
any  connection  at  all.  Many  sources  which  would 
have  been  available  for  such  use,  and  which  a  later 
exegesis  did  use,  have  no  existence  for  him.  There  is 
significance  in  the  prophets  and  sections  of  prophecy 
which  he  does  not  use.  We  do  not  find  him  taking 
pains  to  adjust  his  life  to  prophetic  details,  nor  did  he 
notice  any  such  details.     When  he  finds,  in  reference 


194  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

to  his  sufferings,  anticipated  parallels  in  the  prophets 
to  his  own  lot,  he  never  suggests  that  his  lot  was  de- 
termined by  the  thing  written.  It  is  simply  the  repeti- 
tion of  history.  Continuing  the  work  of  the  prophets, 
as  their  successor,  accepting  as  he  did  the  ruling  ideas 
of  the  prophetic  message,  he  would  naturally  find  in 
the  prophets  anticipations  of  his  own  work.  In  his 
sufferings  and  death  he  does  share  the  prophetic  lot. 
It  is  to  be  noted  that  he  does  not  use  those  passages 
most  suitable  to  bring  out  the  idea  of  the  personal 
Messianic  hope.  He  appeals  to  passages  which  de- 
scribe the  ideal  of  Israel,  rather  than  to  those  which 
describe  a  personal  head.  Of  this  nature  are  those  of 
Deutero- Isaiah.  He  uses  passages  which  are  descrip- 
tive of  Israel  rather  than  of  Israel's  king. 

His  teaching  is  like  that  of  the  prophets  in  that,  like 
theirs,  it  was  founded  on  a  revelation.  There  is,  how- 
ever, one  significant  difference.  While  the  divine  in- 
spiration comes  to  the  prophets  spasmodically,  in 
specially  elevated  moments,  as  a  more  or  less  foreign 
influence  coming  from  without,  in  Jesus  it  is  the  calm, 
continuous  stream.  He  knows  nothing  of  special 
ecstasies  of  revelation.  With  him  revelation  is  as  an 
unceasing  spring  in  the  soul.  He  is  not  the  mere 
messenger  ;  he  himself  is  the  message. 

The  Nature  of  Prophecy  as  Understood  by  yesus 

If,  at  this  point,  we  pause  to  consider  the  nature  of 
Old  Testament  prophecy  itself,  we  shall  best  see  that 
aspect  of  it  which  concerned  Jesus.  In  prophecy  we 
distinguish  two  different  elements.  One  is  the  con- 
crete, definite,  and  historical.  The  other  is  the  ideal 
and  general.  One  deals  with  facts ;  the  other  with 
principles.     Considered  in  the  light  of  the  first  element 


Jesus'  View  of  Prophecy  195 

of  prophecy,  the  historical,  the  prophets  were  not  mere 
predictors.  They  were  preachers  ;  preachers  for  their 
age,  concerned  supremely  with  the  present  and  the 
near  future.  When  we  do  find  prediction,  it  is,  in  the 
mainr  concrete,  definite,  and  literal.  Its  fulfilment  was 
to  be  immediate.  And  where  we  have  prediction,  its 
largest  fulfilment  was  not  in  the  actual  coming  to  pass 
of  the  events  which  the  prophets  foresaw,  but  rather 
the  victory  of  their  truth  and  principles.  The  real  ful- 
filment was  the  Jewish  Church,  the  creative  work  of 
the  prophets,  which  finally  gave  us  Christ  and  Chris- 
tianity. Prophecy,  in  the  self-consciousness  of  the 
prophets,  was  the  reflection  on  earth  of  the  divine  ideal 
in  relation  to  human  affairs.  Institutions,  events,  and 
persons  were  the  media  of  this.  Prophecy  was  fulfilled, 
primarily,  as  fast  as  the  Kingdom  of  God  came.  This 
is  by  far  the  ruling  idea  of  prophecy.  That  portion  of 
prophecy  which  is  generally  considered  as  distinctly 
Messianic  forms  a  very  small  portion  of  the  prophetic 
books.  The  principal  value  of  prophecy  was  in  its 
foreshadowing  of  that  ideal  which  was  realized  in  Jesus 
Christ.  Thus,  in  one  sense,  all  prophecy  is  Messianic. 
Indeed,  the  question  is  not  definitely  answered  as  to 
whether  we  have  in  the  Old  Testament  a  Messianic 
hope  in  the  narrow  personal  sense.  At  all  events  this 
is  entirely  subordinate  to  the  larger  idea. 

Suppose,  for  a  moment,  that  there  is  in  the  Old 
Testament  a  personal  and  individual  Messianic  picture. 
Is  there  any  possibility  of  its  fulfilment  in  detail  ?  As 
a  matter  of  fact  there  is  no  consistent  picture.  The 
great  personage  is  glorified  in  different  aspects.  During 
the  time  of  the  monarchy  he  is  pictured  as  an  ideal 
theocratic  king.  Later,  he  is  set  forth  as  a  priest. 
During  the  Exile  he  disappears  and  gives  place  to  a 


196  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

personalized  idea  representing  Jahwe  himself.  How 
impossible  to  conceive  of  any  literal  fulfilment  in  the 
light  of  all  this  variety.  It  is  clear  that  the  prophets 
connected  their  ideas  very  closely  with  the  present ; 
shaped  them  in  accordance  with  their  own  time  and 
with  reference  to  events  then  happening. 

But  when  we  look  at  prophecy  in  the  other  and 
larger  conception,  fulfilment  becomes  a  possible  and  a 
natural  thing.  The  general  prophetic  picture  is  the 
same  in  all  the  prophets.  They  hoped  and  longed  for 
the  same  ideal.  The  fulfilment  of  the  ideal  was  possi- 
ble and  inevitable. 

It  was  this  latter  view  of  prophecy  which  Jesus 
shared.  When  he  looked  for  connection  at  all,  he 
looked  for  this  inner,  spiritual  sense  of  connection  be- 
tween himself  and  the  past.  When  he  connected  the 
New  and  the  Old,  he  sought,  not  the  external  harmony 
which  could  not  be  found,  but  the  internal,  spiritual 
harmony  which  he  could  and  did  find.  Hence,  with 
him,  the  national  and  particular  was  set  aside ;  the 
universal  and  spiritual  was  brought  out.  In  this  sense, 
with  this  recognition  of  the  ideal  of  prophecy,  Jesus 
realized  himself  as  fulfilling  it.  We  have  seen  that  in 
his  exposition  of  Psalm  ex.,  1,  he  denied  the  value  of 
the  literal  and  particular,  and  emphasized  the  worth  of 
the  general.  Indeed,  we  may  go  further,  and  say  that 
Jesus  actually  denies  the  details  of  the  prophetic  picture 
in  its  concrete  form.  That  picture,  as  far  as  it  appeared 
in  prophecy,  represented  him  as  a  theocratic  king  over 
a  temporal  kingdom.  The  Messianic  picture,  in  the 
main,  is  not  that  of  the  Son  of  Man  who  had  not  where 
to  lay  his  head ;  but  of  one  who  sat  in  royal  glory. 
Jesus  was  no  more  the  Messiah  of  the  Old  Testament 
than  his  Kingdom  of  God  was  the  Jewish  Theocracy. 


Jesus'  View  of  Prophecy  197 

Looking  at  prophecy  in  this  broader  interpretation, 
Jesus  could  adopt  consistently  its  various  pictures,  as 
he  did.  Thus  he  can  use  the  figure  of  the  Son  of  Man 
exalted  in  Daniel,  and  also  that  of  the  meek  and  lowly 
one  of  Zechariah.  The  harmony  is  moral  but  not 
mechanical.  It  is  only  in  this  way  that  these  ideal 
personalities,  collectively,  are  fulfilled  in  one  person. 

yesus*  Messianic  Idea 

We  need  now  to  consider  just  what  Jesus'  Messianic 
idea  was.  That  theological  view  by  which  Jesus  has 
been  conceived  of  as  literally  fulfilling  Old  Testament 
prophecy  finds  its  basis  in  the  fact  that  Jesus  claimed 
to  be,  and  was,  the  Messiah.  Jesus  certainly  claimed  to 
be  the  Messiah.  He  claimed  to  be  the  Messiah  of  the 
Old  Testament.  We  must  remember  that  in  his  time 
variant  and  conflicting  views  of  the  Messiah  were  de- 
duced from  the  Old  Testament.  It  is  certain  that  Jesus 
could  not  literally  conform  to  all  these  ideas.  It  is  just 
as  certain  that  he  did  not  conform  to  the  general  con- 
ception of  his  time.  That  idea  was  so  mixed  up  with 
idle  dreams,  ambitions,  and  shams,  based  on  a  literal  and 
microscopic  exegesis,  that  Jesus  had  to  break  away  from 
it  here,  and  he  did  so.  He  denied  the  prevalent  con- 
ception of  the  Messiah,  and  at  the  same  time  condemned 
the  method  by  which  they  arrived  at  it.  Jesus'  conception 
of  the  Messiah  was  not  taken  from  descriptions  found 
in  prophecy.  It  was  his  own  spiritual  nature  which 
determined  its  form.  Wherever  he  does  draw  from 
prophecy,  it  is  from  sources  not  individually  Messianic. 
Jesus  did  not  use  Messianic  terms.  The  term  Son  of 
Man  was  not  Messianic.  He  utterly  destroys  the  de- 
tailed picture  of  prophecy.     While,  on  the  one  hand, 


198  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

he  views  the  Kingdom  of  God  as  in  fundamental  har- 
mony with  the  Old  Testament  revelation  of  the  grace 
and  will  of  God,  on  the  other,  he  can  dispense  entirely 
with  its  local  form  in  the  Old  Testament. 

Fulfilment 

In  the  light  of  all  this,  what  does  Jesus  mean  by  ful- 
filment? What  does  he  mean  when  he  says,  "  Think 
not  that  I  came  to  destroy  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  ; 
I  came  not  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil "  ?  We  have  seen 
that  this  verb  is  used  in  a  variety  of  ways  in  the  New 
Testament.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  certain  that  Jesus 
would  not  mean  one  thing  in  the  case  of  the  Law,  and 
a  totally  different  thing  in  the  case  of  the  Prophets.  0 
vofjios  Kai  01  npocp-qrai  means  the  whole  Old  Testament 
taken  together.  It  does  not  relate  merely  to  prophetic 
predictions.  Hence  Jesus  fulfilled  prophecy  in  precisely 
the  same  sense  as  he  fulfilled  the  Law.  Now  we  know 
what  Christ's  attitude  towards  the  Law  was.  It  was 
that  of  an  absolute  disregard  of  the  letter.  How  was 
it  with  regard  to  the  Law  ?  At  the  fulfilment  in  Jesus, 
and  as  a  consequence  of  this  fulfilment,  the  particular, 
the  detailed,  all  dropped  away.  Laws  gave  way  to 
law,  the  law  of  love.  So  with  prophecy,  the  temporal, 
the  formal,  the  detailed,  slipped  away.  Definite  pro- 
grammes gave  way  to  the  general  ideal  of  truth  which 
they  had  imperfectly  set  forth.  In  Jesus'  fulfilment 
of  Law  and  Prophets,  he  refers  to  his  perfect  revelation 
of  the  comprehensive  moral  purpose  and  plan  of  God. 
Hence  nXifpooaat  cannot  here  mean  fulfilment  of  the 
prophets  as  detailed  announcers  of  future  things.  Jesus' 
meaning  must  be,  fulfilment  of  spirit  and  purpose.  In 
this  way  he  can  truly  say  that  he  fulfils  the  Law  and 
the  Prophets.    He  fulfils  their  ideal.     He  fulfils  both  of 


Jesus'  View  of  Prophecy  199 

them  as  a  whole.  He  saw  in  both  a  reaching  out  toward 
an  ideal  which  was  his,  and  which  he  was  conscious 
of  embodying  in  his  personal  message.  He  brings  to 
perfect  expression  what  they  imperfectly  expressed. 
Realizing  this  ideal,  he  fulfils  the  Law  and  the  Pro- 
phets. Beyschlag  calls  it  a  "didactic  fulfilment";  "a 
perfection  and  completion  in  virtue  of  which  the  inmost 
meaning  .  .  .  is  to  be  set  forth  and  made  authori- 
tative as  it  had  not  been  in  the  Old  Testament  form. 
.  .  .  He  fulfils  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  by  bring- 
ing about  what  they  aim  at,  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven 
or  the  Kingdom  of  God."  Riehm  insists  on  a  distinc- 
tion between  prophecy  and  fulfilment.  The  two  must 
not  be  confused.  He  says  that  prophecy  is  what  the 
prophet,  in  his  age  and  circumstances  and  dispensation, 
meant ;  Fulfilment  is  the  form  in  which  his  great  re- 
ligious conception  will  gain  validity  in  other  ages,  in 
different  circumstances,  and  under  another  dispensation. 
Certain  elements,  therefore,  of  the  relative,  the  circum- 
stantial, and  the  dispensational  must  be  stripped  away 
and  not  expected  to  go  into  fulfilment.  {Messianic 
Prophecy,  "  Introduction,"  page  xvi.)  Prophecy,  then, 
was  fulfilled  by  the  coming  of  the  Kingdom  of  God 
with  him.  As  Wendt  remarks :  "  It  was  not  by  quan- 
titative extension,  but  by  qualitative  renewal  that  he 
designed  to  bring  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  to  fulfil- 
ment." Huhn  has  the  following  admirable  summing 
up  of  Jesus  attitude  toward  prophecy : 

"Die  Evangelien  ziegen  uns,  dass  Jesus  als  Messias  nicht  die 
sitmliche  Seite  der  prophetischen  Zukunftsbilder  betont  hat ; 
vgl.  die  Versuchungsgeschichte  Mt.  iv.,  I-II,  Iv.  iv.,  1-13. 
Dass  ein  neues  Band  zwischen  Gott  und  der  Menschheit 
gekniipft  werden  miisse,  dieser  Gedanke  stand  im  Mittelpunkte 
des  religiosen  Lebens  Christi  und  bedingte  seine  ganze  Wirk- 


200  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

samkeit;  vgl.  Mt.  xxvi.,  28;  Mc.  xiv.,  24;  L.  xxii.,  20;  1  K. 
xi.,  25.  Stellen  wie  Jer.  xxxi.,  31-342  fandeu  in  seinem  Herzeti 
vor  allem  Aufnahme.  Er  hat  ferner  keinen  Nachdruck  auf 
die  Worte  des  Alten  Testaments  gelegt,  welche  als  Weissagun- 
gen  auf  einzelne  Ereignisse  seines  Lebens  angesehen  werden 
konnten.  Jesus,  der  uns  uberall  die  Wahrheit  des  Wortes 
entgegenhalt,  dass  der  Buchstabe  totet,  der  Geist  aber  lebendig 
macht,  lasst  den  Eintritt  in  das  Reich  Gottes  nicht  von  dem 
Glauben  an  solche  Weissagungen  abhangig  sein.  Auf  welche 
Weise  man  nach  seiner  Lehre  zum  ewigen  Leben  gelangt,  sieht 
man  aus  Mt.  xix.,  17,  xxii.,  37-40;  L.  x.,  25-28. 

"Allerdings  hat  sich  Jesus  durch  exegetische  Voraussetzun- 
gen,  die  er  mit  seiner  Zeit  teilte,  irrefiihren  lassen  und  hat  z.  B. 
Ps.  ex.  auf  den  Messias  bezogen.  Wahrend  es  hier  ungewiss 
bleibt,  ob  er  die  Anwendung  desselben  auf  seine  Person  hat 
machen  oder  ablehnen  wollen,  hat  auf  seine  Erwartung  seiner 
Wiederkunft  das  Buch  Daniel  gegen  Ende  seines  Lebens 
entscheidenden  Einfluss  ausgeiibt  und  ihm  ziemlich  viel  aus- 
serliche  und  obendrein  unerfullt  gebliebene  Hoffnungen  gelie- 
fert.  Aber  fur  den  Kern  seiner  Persoulichkeit  ist  dies  ohne 
tiefergehenden  Einfluss  geblieben  ;  fur  diesen  waren  Ideen  des 
Alten  Testaments  massgebend  wie  die  von  Gott  als  Vater  (z.  B. 
Mai.  ii.,  10;  Ps.  lxviii.,  6,  ciii.,  13),  von  der  Liebe  zu  ihm  und 
dem  Nachsten  (Dt.  vi.,  5;  Lev.  xix.,  18;  vgl.,  Mt.  xxii.,  37-39; 
Mc.  xii.,  30,  31  u.  a.),  von  der  Barmherzigkeit  im  Vorzug  vor 
dem  Fasten  und  Opfer  (Jes.  lviii.,  5-7;  Hos.  vi.,  6;  vgl.,  Mt. 
ix.,  13,  xii.,  7),  Ideen,  die  mit  der  messianischen  Hoffnung  gar 
nichts  zu  thun  haben."— Hiihn,  Die  messianischen  Weissagun- 
gen u.  s.  w.,  pages  9,  10. 

Thus,  Jesus  could  deplore  and  rebuke  that  method 
of  interpretation  which  concerned  itself  with  such 
questions  of  Messianic  fulfilment  as  blood-relationship 
to  David  ;  while  at  the  same  time  he  could  say,  I 
came  to  fulfil  the  Prophets.  In  me  you  see  the  re- 
alization of  the  prophetic  hope  and  ideal.  As  Well- 
hausen  remarks:  "Jesus  wollte  nicht  auflosen, 
sondern  erfiillen,  d.  h.  den  Intentionen  zum  vollen 


Jesus'  View  of  Prophecy  201 

Ausdruck  verhelfen."  It  is  because  this  is  his  con- 
ception that  he  can  say,  even  of  the  Law,  whose  letter 
he  so  ruthlessly  abrogates:  "  For  verily  I  say  unto 
you,  Till  heaven  and  earth  pass  away,  one  jot  or  one 
tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  away  from  the  Law,  till  all 
things  be  accomplished  (or  fulfilled)." 

Indeed,  he  goes  on  and  illustrates  just  what  he  means 
by  fulfilment  here.  The  righteousness  of  his  disciples 
must  be  a  more  complete  righteousness  than  that  of  the 
older  law.  (Matthew  v.,  20.)  "  To  them  of  old  time  " 
it  was  said,  "  Thou  shalt  not  kill."  But  Jesus  brings 
what  this  law  sought  to  attain  to  perfection.  Men 
must  go  beyond  this  and  not  think  murder  in  the  heart. 
(Matthew  v.,  2\ff.}.  He  does  away  with  the  specific 
demand  in  the  larger  general  demand.  The  command 
to  avoid  the  lustful  thought  and  glance  fulfils  the  old 
commandment  in  substituting  a  universal  principle  for 
a  specific  act.  (Matthew  v.,  27^".)  But  Jesus  goes 
further  and  absolutely  sets  aside  and  abrogates  some 
of  these  laws.  He  denies  their  validity.  He  fulfils 
them  in  that  he  breaks  their  letter  in  order  to  bring 
about  in  larger  measure  their  general  intention.  (Mat- 
thew v.,  33  ff.,  and  v.,  38^".)  Love  for  friends  and 
hatred  for  enemies  must  give  place  to  love  for  all.  Our 
Lord's  idea  of  fulfilment  is  made  very  clear  throughout 
this  whole  chapter.  And  he  brings  it  to  final  expression 
when  he  says,  "Be  ye  perfect."  (Matthew  v.,  48.) 
He  fulfils  the  Law  in  that  he  brings  it  to  perfection. 

Now,  as  we  have  said,  he  cannot  mean  one  thing  in 
the  case  of  the  Law  and  a  totally  different  thing  in  the 
case  of  the  Prophets  when  he  says  in  one  breath,  I  have 
come  to  fulfil  Law  and  Prophets.  His  fulfilment  of 
prophecy  is  also  a  bringing  of  it  to  completion,  to 
perfection. 


202  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

Of  both  Law  and  Prophets  he  fulfilled  that  in  them 
which  was  of  real,  eternal  significance,  their  spiritual 
hope  and  ideal,  and  that  is  the  only  kind  of  fulfilment 
he  ever  sought  or  cared  anything  at  all  about.  One 
who  summarized  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  in  that  one 
word,  Love  (Matthew  xxii.,  40),  couM  declare  that 
he  fulfilled  them.  He  fulfils  them  as  a  whole.  He 
accomplishes  their  great  central  aims.  In  that  they 
comprehended  the  moral  purpose  of  God  he  brings 
them  to  pass.  This  is  the  great  characteristic  of  all 
our  Lord's  teaching.  He  does  not  destroy  the  old 
ideal.  He  takes  up  that  old  ideal  and  enforces,  com- 
pletes, illustrates,  and  applies  it  to  the  life  of  men. 

And  this  means  infinitely  more,  it  gives  far  more 
certain  proof  of  the  real  Messiahship  of  Jesus,  than 
that  fulfilment  so  vainly  sought  by  Scribe  and  Rabbi, 
the  correspondence  of  insignificant  detail.  Our  Lord 
fulfilled  the  prophets  in  that  he  succeeded  to  their 
work,  took  up  and  illumined  their  ideals  and  in  his 
own  person  and  life  set  them  in  living  words  before  the 
eyes  of  men.  And  it  is  only  when  we  see  prophecy 
thus  fulfilled  that  prophecy  itself  reveals  its  significance 
and  becomes  fully  intelligible.  In  his  person  and  in 
his  work  he  brought  to  complete  expression  the  pro- 
phetic ideal ;  in  his  teaching  he  unified,  vitalized,  and 
completed  prophetic  doctrines.  That  ruling  prophetic 
idea  of  the  establishment  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  in  the 
world  was  realized  in  the  Kingdom  of  our  Lord.  That 
Kingdom,  as  the  prophets  had  foreseen  and  declared, 
starting  within  Israel,  has  gone  out  through  all  the 
earth  to  every  nation. 

In  this  largest  sense,  Christ  was  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  in  the  prophets.  Christ  was  there  in  so  far 
as  we  find  his  spirit  there.     Christ  fulfilled  that  in  the 


Jesus'  View  of  Prophecy  203 

prophets  which  breathed  his  spirit.  The  revelation  of 
God,  set  forth  by  prophetic  tongue  and  pen,  increasing 
in  illumination  and  in  power  from  age  to  age,  was  com- 
pleted in  our  I,ord,  in  whom  (<  dwelleth  all  the  fulness 
of  the  Godhead  bodily." 


CHAPTER  VII 

COMPARISONS  OF  JESUS'  VIEW  OF  PROPHECY  WITH 
THAT  OF  THE  RABBIS  ;  PHII.O  ;  THE  SYNOPTISTS  ; 
THE  WRITER  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL,  AND  OTHER 
WRITERS 

TO  do  justice  to  this  part  of  our  work  would  require 
a  book  by  itself.  It  would  be  an  interesting  and 
fruitful  study,  but  it  is  not  deemed  best  to  burden  the 
present  volume  with  an  exhaustive  discussion.  The 
most  that  can  be  done  is  to  indicate  by  a  brief  compari- 
son the  wide  difference  between  our  Lord's  use  of  the 
Scriptures  and  that  of  his  contemporaries.  At  no  time 
does  the  loftiness  of  our  Lord's  thought  appear  more 
clearly  than  when  we  see  him  among  other  men. 

The  Rabbis 
Palestinian-Jewish  Literature 

At  no  point  do  we  find  a  greater  contrast  to  Jesus' 
view  and  use  of  Old  Testament  prophecy  than  in  those 
of  the  Palestinian-Jewish  method  as  seen  in  the  rabbini- 
cal exegesis.  We  shall  only  indicate  briefly  its  grounds 
and  its  main  features.  The  profound  and  superstitious 
reverence  for  Scripture,  the  conviction  of  the  absolute 
literal  perfection  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  led  to 
the  belief  that  they  contained  everything.  The  Rabbis 
were  thus  enabled  to  find  in  Scripture  anything  they 

204 


Prophecy  Comparisons  205 

needed  for  any  purpose.  Their  interpretation  ran  in 
two  directions.  They  sought,  first,  literalness  of  fulfil- 
ment. But  where  a  desired  truth  was  not  found  in 
the  letter  a  spiritualizing  process  was  resorted  to  by 
which  a  hidden  meaning  was  discovered.  Every  sen- 
tence, every  word,  had  an  independent  significance. 
On  the  other  hand,  every  sentence  or  word  was  a  sym- 
bol, with  a  mysterious  content  corresponding  to  almost 
anything  that  the  imagination  could  see.  Any  mean- 
ing was  given  to  a  word  that  could  in  any  way  be 
extracted  from  it.  The  choice  of  the  literal  or  the 
allegorical  interpretation  depended  on  the  argument  to 
be  supported.  The  connections  of  a  passage  of  Scrip- 
ture were  totally  disregarded. 

A  few  illustrations  of  rabbinical  exegesis  will  indi- 
cate the  wide  difference  between  Jesus'  scriptural  views 
and  those  of  the  Rabbis.  The  latter  say,  for  example, 
that  when  a  man  lies  three  days  in  the  grave,  his  en- 
trails are  torn  from  his  body  and  cast  in  his  face ;  be- 
cause it  is  written  in  Malachi  ii.,  3,  "  Behold,  I  .  .  . 
will  spread  filth  upon  your  faces,  even  the  filth  of  your 
solemn  feasts."  In  his  commentary  on  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  Ebrard,  in  addition  to  the  above  example, 
also  cites  the  rabbinical  teaching  on  the  transmigration 
of  the  soul,  and  that  the  souls  of  men  remain  alive  in 
men  ;  for  which  they  give  as  an  example  the  scriptural 
statement  that  the  life  of  Cain  passed  into  Jethro,  his 
spirit  into  Korah,  and  his  soul  into  the  Egyptians. 
This  remarkable  result  is  obtained  as  the  result  of  the 
fact  that  two  words  are  found  in  Genesis  iv. ,  24,  con- 
taining the  first  letters  of  the  words  Jethro,  Korah,  and 
Egyptians. 

"  From  whence  is  it,"  asks  a  rabbinical  interpreter, 
"  that  God  wears  the  phylactery?     From  Isaiah  lxii., 


206  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

8,  where  it  reads,  'Jehovah  hath  sworn  by  his  right 
hand,  and  by  the  arm  of  his  strength.'  The  right 
hand  signifies  the  law,  according  to  Deut.  xxxiii.,  2, 
1  At  his  right  hand  was  a  fiery  law  unto  them.'  The 
arm  of  his  strength  indicates  the  phylactery,  because 
it  is  written,  'Jehovah  will  give  strength  unto  his 
people.'  " 

In  the  Song  of  Songs,  vii.,  9,  the  phrase,  "  Gliding 
through  the  lips  of  those  that  are  asleep,"  or  "  causing 
the  lips  of  those  that  are  asleep  to  move  or  speak," 
which  refers  of  course  to  the  effect  of  wine,  is  rabbini- 
cally  interpreted  as  signifying  that  when  the  living  say 
anything  of  the  dead,  the  lips  of  the  latter  move  in  the 
grave. 

When  God  comes  into  the  Synagogue  and  does  not 
find  ten  persons  there,  He  is  angry,  because  it  is  written 
in  Isaiah  1.,  2,  "  Wherefore  when  I  came,  was  there  no 
man  ? "  As  a  matter  of  fact,  in  this  passage  the 
prophet  gives  a  profound  teaching  with  regard  to  the 
omnipotence  of  God. 

Compare  our  ford's  teaching  regarding  divorce  and 
the  Old  Testament  passage  he  uses  to  enforce  it,  with 
this  rabbinic  interpretation  of  Genesis  xvi.,  3,  concern- 
ing Hagar  :  "  The  text  teaches  us,  that  when  one  lives 
with  his  wife  ten  years  and  has  no  children,  he  is  to 
divorce  her ;  as  the  text  says:  'After — -at  the  end  of  teyi 
years,  that  Abram  had  no  children  by  Sarai,  then  Sarai 
gave  Hagar  to  Abram.'  " 

With  regard  to  the  question  as  to  whether  man  is 
sinful  from  conception  or  only  from  birth,  the  latter 
view  is  held  on  the  basis  of  Genesis  iv.,  7,  "Sin 
coucheth  at  the  door." 

The  passage  in  Genesis  i.,  2,  regarding  the  moving 
of  the  spirit  upon  the  face  of  the  waters,  is  applied  as 


Prophecy  Comparisons  207 

an  injunction  with  regard  to  a  crass,  physical  indispo- 
sition. 

As  we  should  expect,  all  this  sort  of  ingenuity  found 
full  play  in  connection  with  the  Messianic  hope. 

Psalm  xcv.,  10,  "  Forty  years  long  was  I  grieved 
with  that  generation,"  means  that  the  Messianic  period 
shall  be  forty  years.  But,  again,  according  to  another 
it  must  continue  seventy  years,  because  it  is  written 
that "  Tyre  shall  be  forgotten  seventy  j^ears."  (Isaiah 
xxiii.,  15.)  A  combination  of  Psalm  xc,  15,  "  Make 
us  glad  according  to  the  days  wherein  thou  hast  afflicted 
us,"  and  Genesis  xv.,  13,  "  They  shall  afflict  them  four 
hundred  years,"  indicates  four  hundred  years  as  the 
"days  of  the  Messiah."  A  similar  combination  of 
Isaiah  lxii.,  5,  "  and  as  the  bridegroom  rejoiceth  over 
the  bride,  so  shall  thy  God  rejoice  over  thee,"  and  the 
Jewish  saying  regarding  a  thousand  years  being  as  one 
day  with  God  (quoted  in  2  Peter  iii.,  8),  in  view  of  the 
seven  days  of  the  marriage  festival,  indicates  seven 
thousand  years  for  Messiah's  reign. 

A  rabbinic  commentator,  treating  of  the  passage 
Genesis  xi.,  10-28,  beginning  "  These  are  the  genera- 
tions of  Shem,"  asks,  "  Why  is  it  told  how  long  these 
people  lived,  and  that  they  begat  sons  and  daughters, 
— and  why  is  it  not  mentioned,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
men  from  Adam  to  Noah,  that  they  died  ?  "  And  his 
ingenious  solution  is  :  "  Because  from  Shem  descended 
the  House  of  David,  and  the  Messiah  who  lives  for- 
ever, as  it  is  stated  in  the  Scripture,  '  He  asked  life 
of  Thee  and  Thou  gavest  it  to  him,  even  length  of 
days  forever.'  " 

In  Genesis  xlvii.,  29,  Joseph  says:  "  Bury  me  not,  I 
pray  thee,  in  Egypt."  Among  other  extraordinary 
reasons  for  the  request,  one  Rabbi  gives  this,  Because 


208  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

when  the  dead  in  the  outside  land  will  rise  at  the  ad- 
vent of  the  Messiah,  they  will  have  to  roll  under  moun- 
tains and  through  caves,  to  reach  the  land  of  Israel, 
which  will  be  very  painful  to  them. 

Another  Messianic  touch :  When  Jacob  called  his 
sons  and  said,  "  Gather  yourselves  together,  that  I 
may  tell  you  that  which  shall  befall  you  in  the  latter 
days  "  (Genesis  xlix.,  i),  he  intended  to  tell  them  when 
Messiah  would  come.  But  the  Shecinah  departed  from 
him  too  soon  and  he  spoke  other  words  than  those  he 
intended. 

Genesis  i.,  3 :  "  And  God  said,  L,et  there  be  light." 
The  meaning  of  this  passage  is  that,  after  the  captivity, 
God  will  "enlighten"  us  and  send  us  the  Messiah, 
concerning  whom  it  is  said  in  Isaiah  lx.,  1:  "Arise, 
shine,  for  thy  light  is  come. ' ' 

Ruth  i.,  1,  refers  to  the  Messiah.  L,et  the  reader  dis- 
cover the  reference  if  he  can.  Ruth  iii.,  15,  speaks  of 
him  also.  Is  it  not  clear  ?  The  six  measures  of  barley 
refer  to  six  righteous  ones,  of  whom  the  last  is  the 
Messiah,  and  each  of  whom  would  have  six  special 
blessings.  In  Psalm  ii.,  3  (4),  "Jahwe  is  a  man  of 
war"  is  applied  to  the  Messiah.  Is.  xxv.,  8,  is  ap- 
plied to  the  casting  into  Gehenna  of  Satan  and  the 
Gentiles. 

Quite  generally  the  passages  in  Isaiah  xi.  describing 
the  restoration  and  harmonization  of  nature  were  taken 
literally.  Many  interpreters  reasoned  in  this  way:  In 
the  time  of  Messiah  the  nature  of  wild  beasts  and  of 
cattle  shall  be  changed,  and  return  to  what  it  was  when 
they  were  originally  created,  and  in  the  ark  of  Noah  ; 
for  if  when  first  created  the  lion  fed  upon  sheep,  then 
the  creation  would  have  been  destroyed. 

We  saw  in  the  discussion  by  Jesus  of  similar  pas- 


Prophecy  Comparisons  209 

sages  in  Isaiah  referring  to  a  miraculous  removal  of 
earthly  wants,  that  he  gave  them  a  spiritual  significance. 

Of  course  it  is  a  generally  accepted  fact  that  our 
ford's  conception  of  Messiahship  and  of  the  Kingdom 
of  God  was  at  absolute  variance  at  nearly  every  signifi- 
cant point  with  that  of  contemporary  Judaism.  We 
find  a  parallel  in  the  manner  of  treating  the  Old  Testa- 
ment in  the  matter.  In  building  up  their  Messianic 
scheme,  the  Rabbis  used  the  Old  Testament  in  a 
literal  way.  Malachi  iii.,  23,  24,  was  given  a  strictly 
literal  interpretation.  We  saw  that  our  I^ord  re- 
garded this  requirement  of  his  contemporaries  as  a 
trivial  one  and  to  their  insistence  on  Elijah's  com- 
ing he  replies:  If  you  will  insist  on  the  coming  of 
Elijah,  there  is  John  the  Baptist.  If  you  will  have  it 
so,  he  is  your  Elijah.  An  Elijah  has  come,  and  be- 
cause of  your  narrow  literalness,  you  failed  to  see  and 
recognize  him.  Jesus  rebukes  this  literal  expectation. 
Another  element  in  the  contemporary  Messianic  scheme 
was  that  Messiah  should  be  a  son  of  David.  But  again 
we  saw  that  Jesus  declared  this  to  be  of  no  significance 
whatever.  Over  against  their  conception  of  Messiah 
as  son  of  David  he  placed  the  conception  of  Messiah  as 
Son  of  God. 

V/e  can  see  Jesus'  point  of  view  in  its  difference  from 
that  of  contemporary  Judaism  in  his  choice  of  the  Scrip- 
ture he  uses.  The  tendency  of  Scribe  and  Rabbi  was 
to  place  the  prophets  in  a  subordinate  position  to  that 
of  the  I^aw.  Regarding  revelation  and  inspiration, 
comparing  Moses  with  the  prophets,  it  was  held  that 
Moses  ' '  saw  in  a  clear  glass,  the  prophets  in  a  dark 
one,"  or  again,  Moses  "through  one  glass,  they 
through  seven."  It  was  considered  that  the  prophets 
uttered  nothing  valuable  that  had  not  already  been 


210  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

given  in  the  L,aw.  Jesus  by  both  precept  and  example 
takes  the  opposite  view.  His  predilection  was  for  the 
prophetic  writers. 

These  examples,  cited  from  Dopke's  Hermeneutik 
and  other  works,1  are  sufficient  to  indicate  the  literal 
and  unspiritual  interpretation  of  the  Rabbis,  and  to 
show  how  far  removed  from  it  our  Lord  was.  While 
in  the  rabbinic  interpretation  we  see  little  or  no  choice 
in  citing  Scripture,  every  word  being  of  equal  value, 
we  find  Jesus  making  a  distinct  choice,  on  the  ground 
of  spiritual  value.  We  see  absolutely  nothing,  in  his 
use,  of  all  this  extravagance  of  method.  Indeed,  as 
we  have  seen,  in  Matthew  xv.,  3-6  (Mark  vii.,  9_I3)> 
Jesus  dealt  a  death-blow  to  that  traditionalism  which, 
pretending  to  be  based  on  Scripture,  in  reality  abso- 
lutely contradicted  it. 

In  every  case  which  we  have  discussed,  we  have 
seen  that  Jesus  looked  for  and  found  just  what  the  text 
he  used  had  to  say.  Not  so  the  Scribes.  The  real 
tenor  of  the  words  was  lost  sight  of  in  their  straining 
after  logical  deduction,  combination,  and  allegory. 
Nothing  so  clearly  indicates  the  naturalness,  simplicity, 
and  spirituality  of  our  Lord  as  a  comparison  of  his  view 
of  Scripture  with  that  of  his  age  and  race.2 

Kdersheim  remarks  concerning  ' '  the  infinite  differ- 

1  See  Johnson,  The  Quotations  of  the  New  Testament  from  the 
Old,  chapter  xi. 

2  Among  other  works  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  discus- 
sions of  rabbinical  and  scribal  interpretation  in  the  following 
works : 

Mielziner — Introduction  to  the  Talmud. 

Weber,  F. — Judische  Theologie  auf  grund  des  Talmud  und 
verwandten  Schriften. 

Schurer—  The  Jewish  People  in  the  Time  of  Jesus  Christ. 
I.     1.    Section  3— E.  "The  Rabbinical  Literature."      II.     1. 


Prophecy  Comparisons  2 1 1 

ence  between  the  rabbinic  expectation  of  the  Messiah, 
and  the  picture  of  him  presented  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment," and  adds,  "surely  the  Messianic  idea,  as 
realized  in  Christ,  could  not  have  been  derived  from 
the  views  current  in  those  times. ' ' 

The  difference  of  method  in  deducing  from  Scripture 
is  as  great  as  the  difference  in  the  results  produced  by  it. 

Philo 
Hellenistic-Jewish  Literature 

When  we  turn  to  the  Hellenistic-Jewish  interpreta- 
tion of  Scripture  as  illustrated  especially  in  Philo  of 
Alexandria,  we  find  an  equally  great  contrast.  In 
part,  Philo  went  the  same  road  as  the  Rabbis  and  the 
faults  and  falsities  of  his  method  are  of  the  same  gen- 
eral sort.  His  allegorical  canons  are  similar  to  those 
underlying  the  Jewish  traditions  of  the  Haggada.  For 
him  the  Pentateuch  was  the  choice  portion  of  Scripture. 
Moses  was,  to  Philo,  the  incomparably  great  philoso- 
pher and  teacher.  All  the  wise  men  had  learned  from 
him.  In  him  was  all  truth  to  be  found,  both  in  the 
letter  and  underneath  the  letter  of  his  teachings. 

Philo  recognized  both  a  literal  and  an  allegorical  in- 
terpretation of  Scripture.  He  held  to  the  real  person- 
ality of  the  Old  Testament  personages.  But  he  went 
beyond  this  consideration  of  them .  They  must  be  inter- 
preted allegorically.     According  to  Philo' s  symbolism 

Section  25— "Scribism."  II.  2.  Section  29— "  The  Messianic 
Hope." 

More  complete  bibliographies  will  be  found  in  these  works. 
Also  : 

Edersheim — The  Life  and  Times  of  Jesus  the  Messiah,  vol. 
ii.,  Appendices  II.,  III.,  V.,  VIII.,  IX.,  XL,  XIV. 

Ibid,— -Vol.  i.,  Book  I.,  "Traditionalism." 


212  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

the  patriarchs  represented  different  states  of  the  human 
soul.  Joseph  was  justly  hated  by  his  brethren,  for  he 
represented  the  fleshly.  Simeon  was  the  soul  aspiring 
to  the  higher.  The  murder  of  the  Egyptian  by  Moses 
signified  the  defeat  and  overthrow  of  passion.  In 
the  treatise  in  which  he  contends  "That  the  Worse 
is  Accustomed  to  be  Always  Plotting  against  the  Bet- 
ter," Abel  represents  the  God-loving;  Cain  the  self- 
loving.  To  meet  the  necessities  of  this  kind  of  exegesis, 
Philo  claimed  freedom,  even  in  altering  the  punctuation 
and  the  free  choosing  of  synonyms  for  a  word,  in  order 
to  meet  his  special  meaning.  He  claimed  divine  au- 
thority for  the  Septuagint ;  and  any  word  in  it  might 
be  considered  in  the  light  of  any  possible  turning  of  its 
Greek  meaning.  Sometimes  he  even  altered  the  let- 
ters. He  found  significant  symbolism  in  numbers, 
colors,  and  materials  as  well  as  in  names.  Beasts,  fowls, 
creeping  things,  plants,  stones,  and  sex  had  a  like 
significance. 

In  a  general  sense  it  may  be  said  that  Philo' s  exegesis 
and  that  of  the  Rabbis  were  at  one  with  each  other. 
Many  of  Philo' s  doctrines  as  deduced  from  Scripture 
have  high  ethical  value,  but  the  method  by  which  he 
deduced  them  was  mechanical,  arbitrary,  and  grotesque. 
His  view  of  the  Holy  Writings  was  totally  different 
from  that  of  Jesus.  As  in  the  case  of  the  interpreta- 
tions of  the  Rabbis,  his  choice  was  different  from  that 
of  Jesus,  and  on  different  grounds.  It  was  indiscrimi- 
nate in  its  discrimination.  The  Pentateuch  was  his 
realm.  It  was  his  source  for  doctrine.  Jesus,  on  the 
other  hand,  sought  the  more  ethical  and  spiritual  por- 
tions of  Scripture  in  the  prophets.  The  Pentateuch 
belonged  to  them  ' '  of  old  time. ' '  Both  in  choice  and 
method  of  use  there  is  the  wide  difference  of  ages  be- 


Prophecy  Comparisons  2 1 3 

tween  our  I,ord  and  the  Hellenistic-Jewish  interpreters 
of  his  time.1 

Thus  in  both  Palestinian  and  Hellenistic-Jewish  in- 
terpretation we  see  a  world-wide  contrast  with  that  of 
Jesus,  both  as  regards  choice  of  sections  of  the  Old 
Testament  and  as  to  the  still  greater  difference  in  his 
method  of  use.  These  were  methods  with  which  he 
seems  to  have  had  nothing  at  all  to  do.  The  difference 
lies  largely  in  what  Jesus  did  not  do.  The  questions 
which  concerned  these  scholars  of  his  time  were  not 
such  as  concerned  Christ.  He  used  Scripture,  not  to 
set  forth  matters  of  casuistry,  but  great  ethical  and 
spiritual  principles.  For  this  purpose  letter  worship 
had  nothing  to  furnish. 

When  we  come  to  consider  the  use  of  Scripture  by 
the  writers  of  the  four  Gospels,  while  we  shall  find  in 
them  a  certain  dependence  on  rabbinic  exegesis,  we 
shall  find  theirs  a  far  more  cautious  and  spiritual  use. 
They  were  distinctly  above  their  contemporaries  in 
clearness  and  loftiness  of  spiritual  conception,  and  in 
ethical  discrimination.  They  could  not  be  uninfluenced 
by  the  method  of  their  master.     And  yet  their  exegesis 

1  The  reader  is  referred  to  the  following  works  : 

Drummond,  J. — Philo  Judczus. 

Young—  The  Works  of  Philo  J udcsus. 

And  especially : 

Siegfried— Philo  von  Alexandria  ah  Ausleger  des  Alten 
Testaments. 

Edersheim—  The  Life  and  Times  of  Jesus  the  Messiah,  vol. 
ii.  Appendix  II.  contains  a  discussion  on  "Philo  of  Alexan- 
dria and  Rabbinic  Theology." 

/did.— Vol.  i.,  Book  I.,  chapter  iv.,  "  Philo  of  Alexandria," 
etc. 

Schtirer—  The  Jewish  People  in  the  Time  of  Jesus  Christ. 
See  Index,  "  Philo  the  Jewish  Philosopher." 


214  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

is  by  much  the  same  method  and  principle  as  that  of 
their  time,  and  yields  in  some  measure  the  same  results. 
In  contrast  to  all  this  we  find  Jesus  absolutely  free  and 
independent. 

The  Synoptists 

The  First  Gospel 

In  this  Gospel,  about  one  fourth  of  the  citations  from 
the  Old  Testament  are  from  the  hand  of  the  writer  (or 
writers)  himself;  and  they  have  the  evident  and  fre- 
quently expressed  intention  of  proving  the  Messiahship 
of  Jesus.  This  is  especially  true  of  those  quotations 
which  are  not  supported  by  the  other  Gospels.  There 
is  no  doubt  that,  so  far  as  the  first  Gospel  has  a  ' '  ten- 
dency," it  is  in  the  direction  of  this  effort  to  convince 
the  Jews  and  the  Jewish  Christians  of  the  doctrine  that 
Jesus  is  the  Messiah  of  the  Old  Testament  and  of  Israel. 
The  first  Gospel  is  more  than  a  mere  narrative ;  it  is  an 
argument.  This  does  not  imply  that  its  plan  and  com- 
position has  been  so  conceived  and  carried  out  as  to 
destroy  its  historical  credibility.  The  narrative  has, 
however,  been  cast  in  this  framework.  Its  writer  looks 
at  Jesus'  life  and  mission,  and  regards  the  Gospel,  from 
a  point  of  view  taken  on  the  basis  of  the  Old  Testament 
prophecies  as  literal  predictions.  Throughout  the 
Gospel,  we  see  an  effort  to  represent  the  events  in 
Jesus'  life  as  fulfilling  these.  While  he  is  faithful  in 
rendering  the  discourses  of  Jesus,  he  does  give  them  a 
cast  and  application  in  which  he  is  influenced  by  his 
view. 

In  Matthew  i.,  22,  Jesus  is  born  of  a  virgin,  "  that 
it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  by  the  I^ord 
through  the  prophet,  saying,  Behold,  the  virgin  shall  be 
with  child,  and  shall  bring  forth  a  son,  And  they  shall 


Prophecy  Comparisons  215 

call  his  name  Immanuel."  According  to  this  writer  he 
was  born  in  Bethlehem  evidently  to  fulfil  that  which 
was  "  written  through  the  prophet"  in  Micah  v.,  2 
(Matthew  ii.,  5).  John  vii.,  41,  42,  seems  to  contradict 
this  by  implication.  In  Herod's  slaughter  of  the  chil- 
dren, "  was  fulfilled  that  which  was  spoken  through 
Jeremy  the  prophet,"  in  Jeremiah  xxxi.,  15.  Joseph 
fled  to  Egypt,  rather  than  elsewhere,  in  order  to  fulfil 
the  words  of  Hosea  xi.,  1,  "  Out  of  Egypt  did  I  call 
my  son,"  words  which  were  wrested  from  their  setting 
by  the  Evangelist.  In  Hosea,  they  have  no  predictive 
significance  whatever,  being  merely  a  historical  state- 
ment of  a  fact,  namely,  that  God  led  Israel  out  of  Egypt. 
Similarly  Jesus  was  taken  to  Nazareth  (ii.,  23),  "  that 
it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  through  the 
prophets  that  he  should  be  called  a  Nazarene,"  a 
reference  which  probably  has  some  remote  typical  con- 
nection, which  cannot  be  satisfactorily  determined. 
According  to  iv.,  14,  Jesus  dwells  in  Capernaum, 
1 '  which  is  by  the  sea,  in  the  borders  of  Zebulon  and 
Naphtali;  that  it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken 
through  Isaiah  the  prophet"  (Isaiah  ix.,  1,  2).  In 
xii.,  16^".,  Jesus'  healings  are  performed,  and  he 
charges  the  healed  that  they  should  not  make  him 
known,  "  that  it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken 
through  Isaiah  the  prophet,"  referring  to  Isaiah  xlii., 
1-3.  Just  what  the  connection  is  it  is  hard  to  see.  In 
viii.,  17,  he  cast  out  spirits  and  healed  the  sick,  "  that 
it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  through  Isaiah 
the  prophet,  saying,  Himself  took  our  infirmities,  and 
bare  our  diseases"  (Isaiah  liii.,  4).  In  this  instance, 
it  may  be  that  the  departure  from  the  Septuagint  text 
in  favor  of  the  Hebrew,  which  best  suits  the  applica- 
tion, was  the  result  of  this  interest  in  fulfilment. 


216  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

Jesus  even  spake  in  parabolic  form  to  fulfil  a  prophecy 
of  Psalm  lxxviii.,  2  (Matthew  xiii.,  35).  Even  the 
matter  of  the  price  paid  the  traitor,  according  to 
xxvii.,  9  ff.,  had  been  prearranged  in  the  prophets, 
according  to  the  arbitrary  connection  made  by  this 
writer.  Here  the  reference  is  evidently  to  Zechariah 
xi.,  13,  although  the  Evangelist  wrongly  attributes  it 
to  Jeremiah.  In  the  purchase  of  the  potter's  field,  "  as 
the  Lord  appointed,"  the  writer  refers  to  Jeremiah 
xxxii.,  6-9;  influenced  possibly  by  Jeremiah  xviii.,  1,  2. 

There  are  instances  in  which  the  writer  of  the  first 
Gospel  expands  the  narrative  of  the  source  which  he 
is  following,  by  the  introduction  of  more  explicit  refer- 
ence to  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy.  We  have  such  a 
case  in  xiii.,  14,  15,  where  he  duplicates  and  adds  to 
the  general  illustration  in  the  words  of  Jesus  a  com- 
plete quotation.  In  xxi.,  4,  5,  he  adds  the  definite 
comment,  "  Now  this  is  to  come  to  pass  that  it  might 
be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  through  the  prophet." 
Here  he  alters  the  form  of  the  historic  narrative  in 
order  to  fit  his  misunderstanding  of  the  Hebrew  in  the 
passage  quoted.1  In  xxvi.,  54,  a  comparison  with  the 
parallels  shows  that  he  adds  the  words  of  Jesus  with 
regard  to  the  twelve  legions  of  angels,  closing  with, 
"  How  then  should  the  scriptures  be  fulfilled,  that  thus 
it  must  be?" 

In  Matthew  xii.,  40,  where  Jesus  refers  to  the  preach- 
ing of  Jonah  as  a  sign,  this  writer  interpreted  the  pro- 
phetic reference  with  regard  to  the  resurrection,  whereas 
this  is  not  Jesus'  meaning  at  all.2     In  Matthew  v.,  48, 

1  See  our  previous  discussion  in  Chapter  V.,  "The  Triumphal 
Entry." 

3  See  our  previous  discussion  in  Chapter  V.,  "  The  Sign  of 
Jonah  the  Prophet." 


Prophecy  Comparisons  217 

we  have  a  variation  from  Luke  vi.,  36.  In  place  of 
Luke's  oiHTip/Jove?  Matthew  has  rsXewi.  Luke's 
seems  to  be  the  correct  rendering,  and  it  is  not  im- 
probable that  Matthew's  change  is  to  make  the  saying 
correspond  more  literally  with  Genesis  xvii.,  1,  where 
the  word  D^EH  is  used. 

We  are  not  concerned  here  either  to  attack  or  to  de- 
fend the  hermeneutics  of  the  first  Evangelist.  They 
show  the  literary  influence  of  his  age.  There  is  a  like- 
ness to  the  Talmudic  exegesis.  It  is  used,  however, 
with  much  more  caution  and  in  a  much  worthier  cause. 
But  we  cannot  fail  to  see  that  we  have  here  a  mechani- 
cal literalness,  a  subtile  correspondence,  which  stands 
in  striking  contrast  with  the  profound  spiritual  use  and 
interpretation  of  prophecy  by  Jesus.  The  contrast  is 
very  great.  We  found  nothing  of  this  literal  and  de- 
tailed use  by  Jesus.  With  regard  to  this  question  a 
writer  says,  "  It  is  evidently  possible  that  God  may 
have  providentially  ordered  that  there  should  be  these 
correspondences,  even  of  a  minute  kind,  between  inci- 
dents of  the  life  of  Jesus  and  the  language  of  ancient 
Scriptures,  for  the  express  purpose  of  being  so  many 
finger-posts  pointing  him  out  as  the  Christ,  for  men  to 
whose  minds  such  indications  would  appeal."  We 
would  only  say  that  Jesus  either  was  oblivious  of  the 
divine  purpose,  or  else  set  aside  this  divinely  given 
opportunity,  and  wilfully  preferred  to  rest  his  personal 
claims  upon  himself,  his  life,  and  his  truth.  We  think 
it  more  probable  that  we  are  to  see  here,  not  a  clearer 
insight  of  the  Evangelist ;  but  rather  a  limitation  of  the 
Evangelist  by  the  needs  and  methods  of  his  age.  In 
Jesus  we  see  a  spiritual  vision  which  lifted  him  above 
all  this. 


218  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

The  Second  Gospel 

The  Gospel  according  to  Mark  does  not  offer  much 
opportunity  for  comparison.  Its  writer  was  supremely 
concerned  to  set  forth  the  simple  life  of  Jesus.  He  does 
not  enter  into  doctrinal  questions.  The  argumentative 
element  concerning  our  Lord's  fulfilment  of  prophecy, 
such  as  we  found  in  the  first  Gospel,  is  lacking  in  the 
second.  There  is  not,  in  the  whole  Gospel  of  Mark,  a 
single  case  of  the  kind  of  prophetic  reference  such  as 
we  found  forming  the  very  framework  of  the  first  Gos- 
pel. And  we  have  only  two  references  of  any  kind,  both 
in  the  fourteenth  chapter.  In  Mark  xiv.,  21,  we  have 
"  For  the  son  of  man  goeth  even  as  it  is  written  of 
him."  Matthew  has  the  same.  But  significantly 
enough  Luke  has:  "  For  the  son  of  man  indeed  goeth 
as  it  hath  been  determined. ' '  Whichever  be  the  correct 
rendering,  Luke  clearly  gives  the  meaning.  Our  Lord 
is  merely  represented  as  saying,  "  I  go  to  meet  my  in- 
evitable lot." 

We  have  a  similar  passage  in  Mark  xiv.,  49:  "  But 
that  the  scriptures  might  be  fulfilled."  Matthew  ex- 
pands on  this:  "  But  all  this  is  come  to  pass,  that  the 
scriptures  of  the  prophets  might  be  fulfilled  "  (Matthew 
xxvi.,  56).  Here  again  we  have  a  significantly  dif- 
ferent rendering  in  Luke  :  ' '  But  this  is  your  hour  and 
the  power  of  darkness." 

With  the  exception  of  these  two  very  general  and 
indefinite  passages,  the  Gospel  of  Mark  knows  nothing 
of  the  correspondences  which  the  writer  of  the  first 
Gospel  so  industriously  sought  out. 

The  Third  Gospel 

The  writer  of  the  Gospel  of  Luke  makes  only  three 
direct  references  to  the  Old  Testament  writings.     In 


Prophecy  Comparisons  219 

ii.,  23,  24,  the  Law  is  cited  in  explanation  of  a  Jewish 
custom.  In  iii. ,  4-6,  he  likens  the  mission  of  John  the 
Baptist  to  that  described  by  Isaiah  the  prophet.  In  i., 
17,  in  the  description  of  John  the  Baptist,  Malachi  iv., 
6,  is  cited. 

In  several  instances,  peculiarly  enough,  this  Gospel 
puts  different  words  in  Jesus'  mouth  from  those  of  the 
other  accounts,  where  this  question  of  prophecy-fulfil- 
ment is  involved.  In  Luke  xxiii. ,  46,  it  puts  a  different 
quotation  on  Jesus'  lips,  when  on  the  cross.  In  our 
last  section  we  discussed  two  cases  where  he  has  a 
totally  different  rendering  from  both  Matthew  and 
Mark,  namely  Luke  xxii.,  22,  and  xxii.,  53.  In  our 
textual  comparisons  of  the  quotations  of  Jesus  we  saw 
that  this  writer  was  not  at  all  concerned  in  preserving 
Old  Testament  references.  We  find,  on  the  whole,  in 
this  Gospel  little  interest  in  the  matter  of  preserving, 
identifying,  and  comparing  events  in  our  Lord's  life 
with  Old  Testament  prophecies  or  predictions.  In  the 
main  he  presents  such  only  where  he  is  recording  say- 
ings of  Jesus  himself.  Unlike  the  writer  of  the  first 
Gospel  he  does  no  comparing  on  his  own  account.  One 
has  only  to  compare  the  accounts  of  Matthew  and  Luke 
concerning  the  birth  and  early  days  of  Jesus,  and  con- 
cerning his  passion  and  death,  to  see  the  differing  inter- 
ests of  these  two  writers. 

In  fact,  in  some  cases,  either  the  writer  of  Matthew 
or  Mark  has  changed  his  sources  in  this  interest,  or 
else  Luke  has  purposely  eliminated  the  predictive  fea- 
ture, unless  he  had  or  chose  a  source  unlike  that  of 
either  of  the  other  two.  Take,  for  example,  Luke  xxii., 
22,  and  xxii.,  53.  In  the  first  instance,  Luke  has,  "For 
the  son  of  man  indeed  goeth  as  it  hath  been  determined, ' ' 
where  the  other  two  Synoptists  have,  ' '  even  as  it  is 


220  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

written  of  him."  Luke  uses  the  verb  opigao,  while  the 
others  use  the  stereotyped  ysypartrai.  Again,  in  re- 
gard to  Luke  xxii.,  37,  we  have  discussed  the  changes 
of  language.  Here  Luke  has  r8\e6dt]vaiz=zhrQ\xgh.t 
to  pass,  completed,  accomplished  ;  and  reAos  =  end  ; 
where  the  other  writers  would  probably  have  used  the 
verb  7i\i]pooj  ="  fulfil." 

In  verse  53  of  the  same  chapter  we  have  a  very  sig- 
nificant change.  The  parallel  in  Matthew  xxvi.,  56, 
reads  :  "  But  all  this  is  come  to  pass  that  the  scriptures 
of  the  prophets  might  be  fulfilled  ' ' ;  and  in  Mark  xiv. , 
49:  "  But  that  the  scriptures  might  be  fulfilled." 
Strangely  enough,  Luke  reads  :  "  But  this  is  your  hour 
and  the  power  of  darkness."  Indeed,  there  is  not,  in 
the  third  Gospel,  a  single  suggestion  of  any  interest  in 
this  matter  of  Scripture- fulfilment,  until  we  come  to 
the  eighteenth  chapter.  After  this  we  do  have  a  half- 
dozen  mere  suggestions  of  something  of  the  kind. 

The  first  of  these  is  Luke  xviii.,  31:  "  And  he  took 
unto  him  the  twelve,  and  said  unto  them,  Behold,  we 
go  up  to  Jerusalem,  and  all  the  things  that  are  written 
through  the  prophets  shall  be  accomplished  (rsXsGOrjGe- 
rai)  unto  the  so?z  of  man."  The  italicized  phrase  is 
found  only  in  Luke.  Here  is  a  case  exactly  the  oppo- 
site of  the  change  in  Luke  xxii.,  22.  It  may  be  that 
Luke  has  taken  the  words  found  in  the  parallels  to 
Luke  xxii.,  22,  and  inserted  them  here  instead  of  in 
the  place  where  Matthew  and  Mark  have  them.  This, 
however,  amounts  to  no  more  than  a  possible  conjec- 
ture. The  motive  for  the  change  or  the  insertion  is 
clear  enough.  In  all  probability,  we  do  better  to  hold 
by  the  text  of  Mark  x.,  2>2ff-->  and  Matthew  xx.,  17  ff. 

But  it  may  be  more  profitable  to  discuss  the  signifi- 
cance of  these  words  after  we  have  reviewed  the  other 


Prophecy  Comparisons  221 

passages  in  Luke  which  are  of  the  same  character  and 
import. 

In  Luke  xxi.,  22,  we  have:  "  For  these  are  days  of 
vengeance,  that  all  things  which  are  written  may  be 
fulfilled  "  (n\rf6drjvai).  This  is  peculiar  to  Luke  and 
is  in  a  section  peculiar  to  this  Gospel.  The  whole 
section  is  confusing,  containing  doublets  and  parallels. 

There  are  numerous  passages  in  the  Old  Testament 
to  which  "  all  things  which  are  written  "  might  refer. 
This  whole  section  in  Luke  bears  clear  marks  of  a  later 
working  over.  Jesus'  words  have  been  here  recorded  in 
the  light  of  what  afterward  really  occurred.  Notice,  for 
example,  Luke's  departure  from  his  parallels  in  Luke 
xxi.,  20.  Just  following,  in  verse  24,  we  have  the 
phrase  :  "  Until  the  times  of  the  Gentiles  be  ftdjilled" 
(jrXrjpGoOGoGiv).  This  is  peculiar  to  Luke  and  has 
generally  been  considered  as  a  parenthetical,  explana- 
tory addition  by  the  writer.  The  meaning  is  by  no 
means  clear.1 

These  three  passages,  Luke  xviii.,  31,  xxi.,  22,  and 
xxi.,  24,  are  so  vague,  general,  and  indefinite  that  they 
form  no  basis  for  any  certain  judgment,  either  as  to  the 
writer's  view  or  of  that  of  Jesus,  if  he  uttered  them. 

But  there  are  further  passages,  all  contained  in  the 
twenty-fourth  chapter,  which  are  somewhat  more  ex- 
plicit: Lukexxiv.,  25-27;  Luke  xxiv.,  44-47.  These 
belong  in  a  portion  of  the  Gospel  entirely  peculiar  to 
Luke.  We  are  on  very  uncertain  ground  here.  Note 
the  general  and  indefinite  nature  of  the  account. 

Luke  xxiv.,  25-27:  "And  he  said  unto  them,  O 
foolish  men,  and  slow  of  heart  to  believe  in  all  that  the 
prophets  have  spoken  !  Behoved  it  not  the  Christ  to 
1  Compare  Tobit  xiv.,  5. 


222  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

suffer  these  things,  and  to  enter  into  his  glory  ?  And 
beginning  from  Moses  and  from  all  the  prophets,  he 
interpreted  to  them  in  all  the  scriptures  the  things  con- 
cerning himself." 

Luke  xxiv.,  44-47:  "And  he  said  unto  them,  These 
are  my  words  which  I  spake  unto  you,  while  I  was  yet 
with  you,  how  that  all  things  must  be  fulfilled  {nXrjftao. 
Orjvai  and  not  as  elsewhere  in  Luke  teXeadrjyai)^ 
which  are  written  in  the  law  of  Moses,  and  the  prophets, 
and  the  Psalms,  concerning  me.  Then  opened  he  their 
mind,  that  they  might  understand  the  scriptures ;  and 
he  said  unto  them,  Thus  it  is  written,  that  the  Christ 
should  suffer,  and  rise  again  from  the  dead  the  third 
day  ;  and  that  repentance  and  remission  of  sins  should 
be  preached  in  his  name  unto  all  the  nations,  beginning 
from  Jerusalem. ' ' 

The  difficulties  in  any  discussion  of  material  con- 
tained in  this  chapter  are  many.  The  philosophical 
and  psychological  difficulty  is  great.  Was  the  resur- 
rection a  spiritual  resurrection,  as  Paul  declares  it  was  ? 
Then  much  in  this  account  in  Iyuke  must  be  set  aside. 
Was  Christ's  a  "  spiritual  body  "?  Spiritual  bodies  do 
not  eat  of  fish.  Nor  do  they  consist  of  "  flesh  and 
bones." 

A  study  of  I/uke's  Gospel  indicates  one  mark,  namely 
— in  certain  cases  the  event  has  been  recorded  in  the 
light  of  later  doctrines  and  events.1  We  have  here  an 
evident  attempt  to  ground  the  later  exegesis  and  inter- 
pretation in  the  example  of  Jesus  himself. 

Any  one  who  makes  a  careful  study  of  the  "  post- 
resurrection  "   accounts  will  feel  that  they  cannot  be 

1  In  the  first  chapter  we  have  poetic  material  in  which  later 
events  are  carried  forward.  The  case  of  change  in  Luke  xxi., 
20,  illustrates  this  writing  of  history  in  view  of  later  happenings. 


Prophecy  Comparisons  223 

used  as  any  basis  for  a  discussion  of  the  teachings  of 
Jesus.  They  reflect  the  later  consciousness  of  the 
Church  and  contain  its  conceptions. 

But  even  if  we  consider  these  passages  as  historical 
and  genuine,  they  do  not  give  us  much  information. 
They  simply  tell  us  that  Jesus  told  them  that  his  life 
and  especially  his  death  were  in  conformity  to  the  re- 
quirements of  Scripture.  To  suppose  that  he  here  took 
a  different  view  of  the  matter  from  that  which  we  find 
in  his  actual  use  of  prophecy,  is  entirely  gratuitous. 
There  is  nothing  here  that  tells  us  of  any  literal  pre- 
dictions in  prophecy  regarding  himself.  We  certainly 
cannot  use  these  vague  and  indefinite  suggestions  as 
any  basis  for  our  Lord's  view  of  the  relation  of  himself 
to  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures. 

Moreover,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  both  of  these  series 
of  texts  are  so  isolated  from  the  general  view  and  inter- 
est of  the  writer  of  this  Gospel,  we  are  inclined  to 
consider  them,  in  the  main,  as  later  parenthetical  ex- 
planatory insertions. 

In  I<uke,  then,  we  have  no  doctrine,  such  as  we  have 
in  Matthew  and  John,  regarding  the  relation  of  Jesus 
to  prophecy.  The  writer  had  no  interest  in  the  question 
whatever. 

The  Fourth  Gospel 

The  writer  of  the  Gospel  according  to  John  shows 
considerable  concern  to  find  literal  parallelisms  between 
the  events  of  Jesus'  life  and  Old  Testament  prophecies 
which  he  takes  as  predictions.  His  point  of  view  seems 
to  be  identical  with  that  of  the  writer  of  the  first  Gospel. 
He  does  not  follow  Matthew,  however,  but  chooses  his 
own  material.  Only  in  one  or  two  cases  does  he  hit 
upon  the  same  passage  as  the  writer  of  Matthew. 


224  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

I^et  us  glance  at  a  few  of  his  interpretations  of 
prophecy. 

In  recounting  the  conversation  between  Philip  and 
Nathaniel  (John  i.,  45),  he  represents  Philip  as  declar- 
ing with  considerable  explicitness :  "We  have  found 
him,  of  whom  Moses  in  the  law,  and  the  prophets,  did 
write,  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  son  of  Joseph."  Here, 
of  course,  there  is  only  a  very  general  statement,  but  it 
indicates  the  point  of  view.  In  ii.,  17,  at  the  occasion 
of  the  temple-cleansing,  he  informs  his  readers  that 
"  the  disciples  "  remembered  that  it  was  written:  "  Zeal 
for  thy  house  shall  eat  me  up."     (Psalm  lxix.,  9.) 

I^ike  Matthew,  this  Gospel  tells  us  in  reference  to 
Jesus'  triumphal  entry  into  Jerusalem,  that  it  occurred 
"as  it  is  written"  in  Zechariah  ix.,  9.  Similarly,  in 
John  xii.,  38,  the  people  believed  not  in  Jesus,  though 
he  had  done  so  many  signs  before  them,  "  that  the 
word  of  Isaiah  the  prophet  might  be  fulfilled."  In- 
deed, he  becomes  more  direct,  literal,  and  explicit,  for 
he  adds:  "These  things  said  Isaiah,  because  he  saw 
his  glory;  and  he  spake  of  him." 

A  most  marked  piece  of  literalism  occurs  in  John 
xiii.,  18.  Jesus  even  chose  Judas,  knowing  when  he 
chose  him  that  he  was  to  be  a  traitor.  And  Jesus  pur- 
posely made  this  choice,  so  this  writer  tells  us,  in  order 
to  fulfil  a  verse  in  Psalms  xli.,  9.  This  is  evidently  an 
interpolation  or  else  a  parenthetical  explanation.  It  so 
disturbs  the  literary  connection,  when  considered  paren- 
thetically, as  to  lead  us  to  conclude  that  it  is  rather  an 
interpolation-  In  any  case  it  shows  us  the  point  of  view 
which  ruled  either  the  original  writer  or  a  later  editor 
of  this  Gospel.     It  is  a  classic  piece  of  literalism.1 

1  See  the  discussion  of  this  passage  in  Chapter  II.,  "A  Signifi- 
cant Interpolation." 


Prophecy  Comparisons  225 

In  John  xv.,  25,  we  have  another  explanatory  inser- 
tion of  a  similar  character:  "  But  that  the  word  may 
be  fulfilled  that  is  written  in  their  law,  They  hated  me 
without  a  cause. ' '  1  Again  this  writer  has  inserted  an- 
other explanatory  or  modifying  clause  which  actually, 
as  it  reads,  distorts  and  destroys  the  effect  of  a  prayer 
of  our  Iyord.  What  a  mechanical  type  of  literalism  it 
is  that  leads  one  to  insert  such  a  phrase  as  this  in  a 
prayer  of  our  L,ord:  "And  not  one  of  them  perished, 
but  the  son  of  perdition  ;  that  the  scripture  might  be 
fulfillledr 

In  John  xix.,  24,  when  the  soldiers  cast  lots  regard- 
ing the  disposition  of  Jesus'  garment,  the  natural  ex- 
planation which  they  themselves  give  is,  that  it  seemed 
unwise  to  rend  it ;  but  this  writer  declares  that  it  was 
done  ' '  that  the  scripture  might  be  fulfilled  ' '  as  written 
in  Psalm  xxii.,  18  (19). 

Jesus,  in  agony  on  the  cross,  says,  ' '  I  thirst, ' '  not 
because  of  natural  suffering ;  and  they  gave  him  to 
drink,  not  in  this  case  simply  because  this  was  the  uni- 
form custom.  The  writer  discards  these  apparent  and 
sufficient  reasons  and  seriously  avers  that  Jesus  cried 
1 '  I  thirst ' '  and  in  response  was  given  this  natural 
drink,  mainly  at  least,  "  that  the  scripture  might  be  ac- 
complished ' '  according  to  Psalm  lxix. ,  21.  In  the  same 
account  ' '  they  brake  not  his  legs ' '  and  ' '  with  a  spear 
pierced  his  side,"  and  "  these  things  came  to  pass,  that 
the  scripture  might  be  fulfilled,"  referring  to  Psalm 
xxxiv.,  20,  and  Zechariah  xii.,  10.  The  disciples  were 
in  amazement  at  the  empty  tomb,  only  because  "  they 
knew  not  the  scripture." 

We  get  other  glimpses  of  this  narrator's  conception 

1  See  the  discussion  of  this  passage  in  Chapter  II.,  "A  Passage 
which  Shows  how  Jesus  did  not  Use  Scripture." 


226  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

in  instances  where  lie  interprets  Jesus'  words  as  literal 
predictions,  although  the  words  as  uttered  by  Jesus 
manifestly  had  no  such  meaning.  For  example,  in 
John  xii.,  32,  Jesus  says:  "And  I,  if  I  be  lifted  up  from 
the  earth,  will  draw  all  men  unto  me."  Jesus,  of 
course,  uses  the  figure  to  declare  a  spiritual  truth,  and 
his  hearers  so  understood  it.  But  this  writer  makes  it 
the  prediction  of  a  physical  event,  "  signifying  what 
manner  of  death  he  should  die."  In  xviii.,  9,  he  ex- 
plains the  request  of  Jesus  that  his  captors  "  let  these 
go  their  way,"  as  a  fulfilment  of  Jesus'  own  words 
spoken  just  before:  ' '  Of  those  whom  thou  hast  given  me 
I  lost  not  one."  Here  is  another  case  where  Jesus  uses 
words  in  a  highly  spiritual  sense  and  this  writer  drags 
them  down  to  depths  of  literalism,  even  to  the  extent 
of  representing  Jesus  as  taking  an  action  in  order  to 
fulfil  his  own  prediction  of  it. 

Again,  the  Jews  refuse  to  dispose  of  Jesus  them- 
selves. They  say  they  refuse  because  it  is  against 
their  law  to  do  so.  And  this  was  true.  But  the  writer 
sees  a  deeper  reason  and  rejects  this  one.  They  refuse 
to  do  it  '  *  that  the  word  of  Jesus  might  be  fulfilled, 
which  he  spake,  signifying  by  what  manner  of  death 
he  should  die."     (John  xviii.,  32.) 

In  ii.,  21,  he  entirely  misinterprets  Jesus'  declaration 
regarding  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple.  It  is  clear 
enough  that  Jesus  means  to  say :  Destroy  this  Jewish 
hierarchy  and  in  a  few  brief  days  I  will  replace  it  by 
the  structure  founded  upon  my  truth.  But  again  the 
writer  discards  or  fails  to  see  this  lofty  spiritual  signifi- 
cance of  our  ford's  words;  and  seriously  tells  us  that 
"  he  spake  of  the  temple  of  his  body." 

There  are,  in  this  Gospel,  several  telltale  evidences 
of  the  causes  that  pushed  the  writer  and  the  early 


Prophecy  Comparisons  227 

preachers  to  this  type  of  interpretation.  A  large  class 
of  men  demanded  that  if  Jesus  be  proved  Messiah,  it 
must  be  done  by  means  of  the  rabbinical  proof  which 
was  current  in  that  age.  In  ii.,  22,  the  disciples  "  be- 
lieved ' '  in  both  Jesus  and  the  Scripture  through  this 
means  of  proof. 

In  these  last  instances,  in  seeing  the  difference  be- 
tween the  real  meaning  of  Jesus'  words,  and  the  wrong 
interpretation  given  by  the  writer  of  John,  we  see  the 
difference  between  Jesus  and  this  writer  on  the  question 
we  are  discussing. 

Indeed,  we  get  information  from  this  Gospel  which 
proves  that  Jesus  never  was  in  the  habit  of  using  this 
kind  of  proof.  From  John  xx.,  9,  it  is  evident  that 
Jesus,  in  declaring  his  resurrection,  had  not  used  Old 
Testament  prediction  to  fortify  his  words,  for  this 
passage  distinctly  tells  us  that  "  as  yet  they  knew  not 
the  scripture,  that  he  must  rise  from  the  dead."  He 
frequently  says  "then  they  remembered  "  certain  Scrip- 
ture references.  It  is  evident  enough  from  this  Gospel 
that  Jesus  had  not  trained  his  disciples  in  this  thing 
nor  set  them  any  example. 

The  principal  contrast  between  our  Lord's  use  of 
prophecy,  and  that  of  writers  like  those  of  the  first  and 
fourth  Gospels,  lies  in  the  fact  that  here  was  a  realm 
which  had  no  existence  for  him,  and  which  they 
entered  into  on  no  authority  from  him. 

Some  Further  Comparisons 

We  find,  throughout  the  remainder  of  the  New 
Testament,  much  of  the  same  use  of  prophecy  that  we 
have  found  to  be  characteristic  of  the  writers  of  the 
first  and  fourth  Gospels.  In  the  speech  of  Stephen, 
recorded  in  Acts  vii.,  2-53,  we  see  clearly  reflected  the 


228  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

method  employed  to  prove  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus. 
Stephen  recounts  the  whole  history  of  Israel  as  leading 
up  to  Jesus  Christ.  The  Old  Testament  personages, 
particularly  the  prophets,  are  referred  to  as  "them  that 
showed  before  of  the  coming  of  the  Righteous  One." 
Acts  vii.,  37,  in  which  passage  Stephen,  speaking  of 
Moses,  says:  "  This  is  that  Moses,  who  said  unto  the 
children  of  Israel,  A  prophet  shall  God  raise  up  unto 
you  from  among  your  brethren  like  unto  me,"  indicates 
the  prevailing  conception  of  the  relationship  between 
prophecy  and  Christ. 

The  requirements  of  the  age  created  the  early  Chris- 
tian apologetic.  This  led  to  its  hermeneutics.  The 
Apostles  were  called  upon  to  prove  their  statements 
that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah;  and  that  proof  must  come 
in  a  specific  and  detailed  way  from  the  Scriptures.  At 
first,  a  crucified  Messiah  was  an  offence  to  the  congre- 
gations of  the  Apostles.  This  offence  must  be  removed. 
This  was  done,  first  of  all,  by  presenting  the  fact  of  his 
resurrection.  This  was  a  vindication  of  his  crucifixion. 
But  the  resurrection  itself  must  be  a  consequence  of 
scriptural  prediction  in  order  to  have  value.  Thus  we 
find  the  burden  of  Paul's  preaching  to  be  that  Jesus 
must  die  ' '  according  to  the  scriptures ' ' ;  and  that  he 
must  rise  the  third  day  "  according  to  the  scriptures." 
(i  Cor.  xv.,  zff.)  In  Peter's  pentecostal  speech  (Acts 
ii.,  14^.),  the  speaking  with  tongues  is  defended  as 
being  a  fulfilment  of  Joel.  (Joel  ii.,  28-32.)  Peter 
proves  the  resurrection  of  the  crucified  Messiah  from 
what  "  David  saith  coyicerning  him"  in  the  sixteenth 
Psalm.  (Acts  ii.,  25^.)  Again,  in  the  temple  speech 
(Acts  iii.,  i#.),  Christ  is  the  true  prophet  predicted  by 
Moses  and  the  prophets. 

It  will  be  of  interest  to  glance  at  some  further  ex- 


Prophecy  Comparisons  229 

amples  which  will  indicate  the  main  purpose  for  which 
the  Apostles  and  disciples  used  prophecy  in  the  preach- 
ing of  the  Gospel.  They  made  little  if  any  distinction 
between  "  the  prophets  "  and  the  other  portions  of  the 
Old  Testament  in  their  considerations  concerning  pre- 
diction. So  we  shall  include  references  contained  in 
other  than  prophetic  books. 

Philip  finds  in  Isaiah  liii.,  7,  8,  a  text  for  the  preach- 
ing of  Jesus  to  the  eunuch.  (Acts  viii.,  32.)  Paul  uses 
Psalm  ii.,  7,  to  prove  that  Jesus  is  God's  son  raised  up 
in  accordance  with  promise.  (Acts  xiii.,  33.)  Peter 
regards  him  as  the  seed  in  whom  the  old  covenant  is  ful- 
filled. (Acts  iii.,  26.)  He  finds  a  prediction  of  Jesus  as 
a  prophet  in  collations  from  Deuteronomy  xviii.,  15-19, 
and  I^eviticus  xxiii.,  29. 

But  not  only  does  the  life  of  Christ  come  within  the 
prophetic  perspective.  It  is  projected  upon  the  back- 
ground of  the  ages,  which  are  full  of  events  in  sym- 
metrical relation  to  the  central  figure.  According  to 
Peter's  view,  the  death  of  the  betrayer  is  predicted  by 
Psalm  lxix.,  25,  and  it  happened  as  it  did  because  the 
Scripture  must  be  fulfilled.  The  Holy  Spirit  had 
spoken  "  by  the  mouth  of  David  concerning  Judas." 
(Actsi.,  16^.)  Matthias  is  elected  to  succeed  Judas 
on  the  authority  of  Psalm  cix.,  8. 

The  arrangement  regarding  the  Gentiles  was  accepted 
because  "  to  this  agree  the  words  of  the  prophets,"  in 
Amosix.,  11  and  12.  (Acts  xv.,  15.)  Selections  like 
these,  which  we  have  taken  at  random  from  the  narra- 
tive in  the  Book  of  Acts,  show  that,  to  these  preachers, 
prophecy  as  detailed  prediction  was  the  key  to  their 
Christology.  Kvery  great  fact  and  some  small  ones, 
every  great  movement,  was  clearly,  specifically,  and 
particularly  set  forth  as  prediction  in  Scripture.     In 


230  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

the  Epistles,  typical  and  allegorical  exegesis  is  used 
with  a  free  hand. 

A  consideration  of  the  Apocryphal  books  reveals  the 
same  thing.  While  the  particularism  of  the  Wisdom 
of  Solomon  shows  a  certain  advance,  it  yet  contains  a 
good  deal  of  this  unethical  use  of  Scripture.  Such  ex- 
amples of  Old  Testament  exegesis  and  application  as 
we  find  in  Tobit  ii.,  6,  and  the  reference  to  the  prophet 
Jonah  in  Tobit  xiv.,  4,  which  come  to  mind,  indicate 
the  prevailing  point  of  view. 

We  have  a  somewhat  striking  example  of  the  free- 
dom with  which  all  this  application  was  made  in  Mat- 
thew iii.,  13,  in  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews  where  the 
baptism  of  Jesus  is  related  to  the  second  Psalm  in  a 
Messianic  sense.  The  later  writers  were  forced  to  the 
same  methods,  a  significant  example  being  found  in 
Ignatius.  The  use  of  prophecy  by  the  Church  Fathers 
was  largely  allegorical  and  typical.1 

With  the  Evangelists  and  Apostles  the  impression 
of  Christ's  person  went  beyond  that  of  his  teaching. 
Their  mission  was  to  present  Christ  as  the  Messiah. 
While  this  needed  no  proof  to  them,  they  were  obliged 
to  prove  it  to  others.  That  proof  could  consist  in  no- 
thing but  the  evidence  that  prophecy  as  prediction  was 
fulfilled  in  Jesus.  In  carrying  out  this  proof,  the  con- 
tent of  his  thought  was  sometimes  overlooked,  and  the 
likeness  of  his  life  and  work  to  the  predictions  in 
prophecy  were  emphasized  at  the  expense  of  the  differ- 
ences. In  fact,  they  did  their  work  so  effectually  in  this 
respect,  that  the  later  Rabbis  were  led  to  invent  a  second 
Messiah,  a  suffering  one,  which  had  not  existed  in  the 
mind  of  pre-Christian  Judaism. 

lSee  Stanton,  The  Jewish  and  the  Christian  Messiah ,  page 
189  #. 


Prophecy  Comparisons  231 

The  apostolic  writers  and  the  Fathers  seem  to  have 
made  little  or  no  distinction  between  different  parts  of 
the  Old  Testament  in  the  prefiguring  of  Christ.  Moses 
and  Joshua  were  typical  of  him.  Jonah,  in  the  belly  of 
the  great  fish,  typified  Jesus  in  the  tomb;  the  brazen 
serpent,  Jesus  crucified.  When  Paul  appeals  to  Christ 
as  buried  and  rising  the  third  day,  he  appeals  to  the 
Jonah  passage.  Later  on,  Noah  floating  in  the  ark 
was  a  prefigurement  of  the  Church  guided  by  Christ. 
The  prophets  had  foretold  all  the  details  of  Christ's  life 
and  work.  There  is  no  doubt  that  this  shaped  to  some 
extent  the  story  of  Jesus'  life,  while  it  was  in  its  oral 
and  early  written,  floating  form.  Events  were  moulded, 
and  prophecy  itself  misconstrued  to  make  the  harmony. 
This  is  plainly  apparent  in  the  accounts  of  Jesus'  work. 
An  example  of  the  tampering  that  was  done  with 
prophecy  is  found  in  the  addition  in  a  manuscript  of 
the  words  "  from  the  Cross  "  to  Psalm  xcvi.,  10,  which 
reads,  "Say  among  the  nations,  Jahwe  reigneth."  This 
was  done  by  a  Christian  writer  in  the  second  century, 
and  we  find  the  text  quoted  in  this  way  by  subsequent 
writers. 

We  ought  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  while  these 
writers  treated  Scripture  in  this  way,  this  was  not 
the  only  use  they  made  of  it.  Side  by  side  with  this, 
we  have  such  spiritual  exegesis  as  that  of  Paul,  for  ex- 
ample, in  the  last  of  Acts.  The  literalizing  method, 
while  general  and  almost  universal,  did  find  its  ob- 
jectors in  the  early  history  of  Christianity.  Such  were 
the  Manicheans.  In  a  dialogue  between  a  Christian 
and  a  Jew  which  was  discovered  not  long  ago,  in  which 
this  was  the  subject,  the  Jew  asks,  when  told  that 
Isaiah  vii.,  17,  prefigures  the  coming  and  offerings  of 
the  Magi,  "  Why,  if  the  Christ  whom  you  speak  of  was 


232  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

really  to  sojourn  among  us,  did  not  the  prophets  say- 
clearly  that  it  was  to  be  so  ?  For,  as  it  is,  you  bring 
me  testimonies  picked  up  here,  there,  and  everywhere, 
now  out  of  one  prophet,  now  out  of  another,  now  out  of 
a  third.  Could  not  any  one  of  these  say  right  out  and 
plainly  that  the  Wisdom  of  God  was  to  be  made  flesh, 
and  to  suffer  this  and  do  that  ?  "  L,isten  to  the  objec- 
tions of  Faustus,  the  Mauichean,  who  strove  with 
Augustine  on  this: 

"You  ask  me,  Why  do  you  not  accept  the  prophets?  Rather 
do  you  tell  me,  if  you  can,  a  reason  why  we  should  do  so.  '  Be- 
cause,' you  answer,  'of  the  predictions  in  which  they  bore  wit- 
ness to  Christ.'  To  be  frauk,  I  have  not  found  any  such  ; 
although  I  have  read  them  with  the  utmost  care  and  attention 
.  .  .  I  should  say,  it  has  already  been  proved  to  excess,  in 
the  books  of  our  predecessors,  that  your  prophets  did  not  utter 
a  single  prediction  of  Christ."  1 

While  we  do  not  agree  with  Faustus  in  regard  to  all 
his  grounds,  he  yet  expresses  the  doubt  that  has  come 
to  many  thoughtful  Christian  scholars  since  his  day. 
It  is  true,  as  Conybeare  says,  that  Faustus  "overshoots 
the  mark."  "There  is  a  great  deal  in  the  Prophets 
and  Psalms  in  the  Old  Testament  without  which  Chris- 
tianity would  be  much  poorer."  But  our  concern  is 
neither  to  attack  nor  to  defend  the  early  use  of  prophecy . 

At  all  events,  whatever  may  be  the  value  of  any 
literal  correspondences  that  can  be  found  between  Christ 
and  the  Old  Testament,  the  significant  thing  which  we 
would  bring  out  is  that  in  our  discussion  of  Christ's  use 
of  prophecy  it  is  clear  that  this  was  not  his  interest. 
While  he  believed  himself  to  be  the  Messiah  and  his 

xSeey  "The  Place  of  Prophecy  in  Christianity,"  F.  C.  Cony- 
beare, The  New  World,  March,  1898. 


Prophecy  Comparisons  233 

disciples  received  this  conviction  from  him,  their  method 
of  proof  was  not  one  suggested  by  Jesus,  but  one  which 
was  forced  upon  them  by  the  influences  of  their  age. 
The  contrast  which  we  find  between  Jesus  and  all  these 
writers  indicates  his  elevation  above  his  age,  his  su- 
periority in  spiritual  insight.  As  we  have  previously 
suggested,  the  Gospel  writers  themselves  show  that 
Jesus  himself  did  not  use  prophecy  in  this  way.  For 
again  and  again  they  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  "as 
yet  they  knew  not  the  scripture."  They  tell  us  that 
they  did  not  discover  all  these  predictions  until  after  his 
death.  "Then  they  remembered"  this  and  that  pas- 
sage. Let  us  take  one  instance  which  will  indicate 
the  difference  between  our  Lord's  method  and  point 
of  view,  and  those  of  his  later  apologists.  When  the 
hearers  of  the  latter  ask,  How  can  this  be  the  Christ  ? 
they  are  met  with  the  answer,  Because  thus  he  is  de- 
clared in  Scripture.     This  is  the  final  appeal. 

But  when,  again  and  again,  Jesus'  hearers  asked  this 
question,  his  reply  is  not  a  piling  up  of  Old  Testament 
predictions.  When  "the  Jews  therefore  came  round 
him,  and  said  unto  him,  How  long  dost  thou  hold  us  in 
suspense?  If  thou  art  the  Christ,  tell  us  plainly;  Jesus 
answered  them,  I  told  you  and  ye  believe  not ;  the 
works  that  I  do  in  my  Father's  name,  these  bear  wit- 
ness of  me."  (John  x.,  24,  25.)  When  they  ask  for 
a  "sign"  (John  vi.,  30),  he  gives  them,  not  an  Old 
Testament  prediction,  he  gives  them  himself.  He  de- 
clares that  he  is  his  own  proof. 

Laying  aside,  then,  the  question  as  to  whether  the 
later  writers  were  right  or  wrong,1   the   fact  remains 

^chiirer  remarks:  " The  Apostles  and  Christian  authors  in 
general  were  preserved  from  the  extravagances  of  Jewish  exe- 
gesis by  the  regulative  norm  of  the  Gospel.     And  yet  who 


234  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

that,  in  the  use  of  Old  Testament  prophecy  and  in  the 
main  conception  of  its  significance  and  value,  there  is  a 
world  of  contrast  between  our  I,ord  and  Philo,  Rabbis, 
Evangelists,  Apostles,  and  Fathers,  his  estimate  of 
prophecy  containing  nothing  of  that  element  which 
they  made  fundamental. 

would  now  justify  such  treatment  of  Old  Testament  passages  as 
is  found,  e.  g.,  in  Galatians  iii.,  16,  iv.,  22-25;  Romans  x., 
6-8 ;  Matthew  xxii.,  31,  32?  " — The  Jewish  People  in  the  Time 
of  Jesus  Christ,  2d  Div.  1,  page  349. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

JKSUS'  VIEW  OF  HIS  BIBI^E 

OUR  discussion  of  Jesus*  use  of  prophecy  suggests 
another  and  a  larger  question.  The  Old  Testa- 
ment was  Jesus'  Bible.  How  did  he,  as  a  whole,  esti- 
mate it  ?  At  the  risk  of  some  repetition,  we  shall  now 
seek  to  suggest  the  broader  significance  of  the  results 
to  which  our  discussion  points.  We  have  seen  that 
Jesus  evidently  placed  a  high  estimate  on  his  Bible. 
This  is  not  indicated  so  much  by  what  he  says  about 
its  authority  as  by  the  fact  that  he  lived  and  breathed 
in  these  Scriptures.  He  gives  us  no  defined  theory  of 
inspiration.  One  thing  seems  certain.  All  Scriptures 
did  not  have  the  same  value  to  him,  for  we  have  seen 
that  his  predilection  was  for  the  prophetic  writers.  We 
have  seen  the  naturalness  of  this.  It  was  largely  due 
to  the  fact  that  he  found  many  points  of  contact  be- 
tween himself  and  the  prophets,  with  regard  to  his  life 
and  experience,  and  with  relation  to  his  thought  and 
teaching.  His  chief  use  of  prophecy  was  for  homiletic 
purposes.  For  him  it  was  primarily  of  value  as  truth 
and  not  as  prediction.  Its  value  rested  on  its  spiritual 
character.  He  does  not  regard  its  authority  as  of  such 
a  nature  as  to  preclude  him  from  diverging,  in  his 
teaching,  from  the  teaching  of  the  prophets.  He  evi- 
dently realizes  that  they  have  not  spoken  all  the  truth 

235    • 


236  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

that  could  be  spoken.  He  goes  beyond  the  prophetic 
view. 

We  see,  for  example,  that  Jesus'  conceptions  of  the 
benefits  and  blessings  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  have  a 
far  less  material,  and  an  infinitely  more  spiritual  char- 
acter than  those  of  the  prophets  in  general.  There  is 
a  difference  in  his  view  of  the  nature  of  the  Kingdom. 
His  conception  of  God,  while  not  inharmonious  with 
the  prophetic  conception,  went  far  beyond  it.  It  is  clear 
that  Jesus  recognized  that  the  revelation  of  God  in  the 
prophets  was  not  in  perfect  form.  It  is  right  at  this 
point  that  we  see  his  clear,  spiritual  discernment.  He 
distinguished  between  the  historic  form  and  the  ideal. 
The  real  significance  of  the  prophets  lay  in  the  latter. 
Thus  he  could  connect  his  teaching  with  the  prophetic, 
and  make  the  latter  his  starting-point.  The  law  of 
connection  was  that  of  inner  idea  and  purpose.  Thus 
did  they  desire  to  see  the  things  which  the  disciples 
saw.  In  hope  and  faith,  even  the  patriarchs  had  re- 
joiced in  him. 

The  point  of  contact  being  thus  ethical  and  spiritual, 
he  is  freed  from  any  slavish  dependence  in  his  use  of 
prophetic  passages.  Evidently  prophecy  did  not  all 
have  equal  value  for  him.  We  saw  that  he  chose 
prophecy  out  of  Scripture.  So  also  he  chose  prophecy 
out  of  prophecy.  Wide  tracts  of  it  had  no  existence 
for  him,  because  the)'  were  inferior  in  spiritual  content 
to  others.  He  clearly  distinguished  between  the  kernel 
and  the  husk,  between  the  human  and  the  divine  ele- 
ment. Wherever  we  find  him  adopting  the  terms  of 
prophecy,  he  transforms  and  spiritualizes  them.  We 
saw  this  in  his  use  of  such  terms  as  Son  of  Man  and 
Kingdom  of  God.  Especially  does  all  this  appear  in 
his  Messianic  conception.     Wherever  he  accommodates 


Jesus'  View  of  His  Bible         237 

himself  to  the  language  of  the  prophets  this  is  the  case. 
As  Colani  says,  ' '  &  la/ois,  il  spiritualise  et  ils'accomode. ' ' 

We  have  seen  that  in  doing  this  he  rose  above  the 
influences  of  his  age.  We  find  nothing  of  that  letter- 
worship,  that  subtile  comparison  and  literalistic  pe- 
dantic correspondence  which  characterized  the  Rabbis, 
and  by  which  the  Evangelists  and  apostolic  writers 
allowed  themselves  to  be  influenced.  We  see  that  his 
idea  of  fulfilment  was  something  very  different  from 
theirs;  something  infinitely  more  spiritual  and  signifi- 
cant. It  may  be  answered  that  there  are  some  passages 
of  Jesus'  sayings  which  are  capable  of  a  different  inter- 
pretation from  that  given  in  the  preceding  chapters. 
What  should  be  our  standard  of  choice  ?  We  answer, 
The  mind  of  Christ.  Finding  all  this  to  be  the  general 
attitude  of  Jesus,  we  must  interpret  those  passages 
where  another  meaning  might  be  possible,  in  the  light 
of  our  Lord's  general  view.  We  must  not  decide  the 
general  by  the  particular. 

In  discussing  such  a  passage,  for  instance,  as  Mark 
xii.,  10,  11,  Gould  remarks: 

"  the  question  whether  Jesus  used  the  passage  according  to  a 
common  view  of  his  time  as  directly  Messianic,  or  only  as  a 
statement  of  .  .  .  principle,  depends  on  our  view  of  him. 
It  seems  to  be  a  rational  inference,  from  what  we  know  of 
Jesus,  that  he  had  derived  his  idea  of  the  Messianic  office 
partly  from  the  Old  Testament,  and  that  idea  is  possible  only 
with  a  rational  treatment  of  the  Old  Testament,  while  the  cur- 
rent view  of  his  time  would  be  derived  from  a  literalistic  and 
irrational  treatment  of  it.  And,  in  general,  we  know  that  he 
so  far  transcended  his  age  as  to  take  a  spiritual  view  of  the  Old 
Testament,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  this  would 
not  include  the  rational  treatment  of  a  passage  like  this.  That 
is,  Jesus  would  see  in  it,  not  a  direct  reference  to  himself,  but 
only  the  statement  of  a  principle  applicable  to  himself." 


238  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

Wherever  Jesus  in  any  way  applies  prophecy  to  him- 
self (and  such  instances  are  very  few)  this  is  the  nature 
of  his  application. 

Among  other  significant  indications  of  Jesus'  view  of 
the  Scriptures  is  the  fact  that  while  he  held  them  in 
deep  reverence,  he  makes  no  effort  at  all  to  show  that 
his  teaching  was  in  accord  with  ' '  them  of  old  time ' '  as 
the  basis  for  his  authority.  He  himself  was  greater 
than  the  Scriptures.  He  reproaches  the  Jews  because, 
in  their  punctilious  search  of  the  Scriptures,  they  were 
so  occupied  that  they  passed  him  by,  and  would  not 
come  unto  him  that  they  might  have  life.  He  did  not 
hesitate,  both  directly  and  indirectly,  to  indicate  diver- 
gence of  his  teaching  from  that  of  Scripture  (Matthew 
v.,  21^".).  Evidently,  then,  he  did  not  consider  it 
either  a  perfect,  complete,  or  errorless  revelation  of 
God.  Scripture,  we  have  already  seen,  was  not  all  one 
and  the  same  thing  to  him.  He  freely  chooses  what  he 
wants  and,  as  one  writer  has  said,  "what  was  not  homo- 
geneous slipped  off."  Only  by  regarding  this  as  his 
attitude  can  we  reconcile  his  open  divergence  from 
much  that  Scripture  contains,  with  the  fact  that,  at  the 
same  time,  he  can  appeal  to  the  Old  Testament.  He 
can  thus  diverge  on  the  basis  of  a  discrimination  be- 
tween certain  parts  of  Scripture;  and,  in  other  cases,  a 
discrimination  between  the  real  vital  principles  in  Scrip- 
ture and  that  which  is  formal  and  local.  He  could 
break  with  the  form  of  the  revelation,  while  he  held  to 
its  truth.     He  could  select  the  truth  from  the  error. 

As  almost  everywhere  else,  Jesus  is  here  a  Jew,  and 
yet  more  than  a  Jew.  He  is  with  his  time,  and  yet 
above  his  time.  His  attitude  toward  the  Old  Testa- 
ment is  much  like  his  general  attitude  toward  Judaism. 
While  he  did  not  take  a  revolutionarv  and  destructive. 


Jesus'  View  of  His  Bible         239 

attitude  towards  either,  he  did  towards  their  errors  and 
perversions.  "  In  the  deepest  sense  he  claims,  not  to 
destroy,  but  to  fulfil  thern.  Yet  how  free  is  his  hand- 
ling of  those  very  commandments,  notwithstanding 
their  historic  sacredness.  He  reserves  to  himself  the 
title  of  pronouncing  what  their  essential  meaning  is, 
of  translating  them  from  the  imperfection  of  the  letter 
into  the  fulness  of  the  divine  intention.  It  is  he  who 
decides  what  shall  disappear  and  what  remain.  He 
endorses,  modifies,  abrogates,  and  yet  at  the  same  time 
insists  that  the  principles  which  he  lays  down  cannot 
in  their  turn  be  abrogated.  He  is  never  confused  or 
uncertain  amid  all  the  multiplicity  of  details  in  the 
Jewish  law;  each  falls  into  its  place,  and  he  passes 
judgment  on  it  with  the  accent  of  absolute  assurance, 
1  Verily  I, say  unto  you.'  "  ' 

A  study  of  Christ's  use  of  the  Scriptures  is  in  itself  a 
commentary  on  the  Scriptures.  As  Meinhold  has  well 
said:  "  Wir  sehen  nicht  in  Jesu  den  Heiland,  weil  er 
der  Messias  des  Alten  Testaments  ist.  Denn  wir  haben 
nicht  Jesum  durch  das  Alte  Testament  sondern  viel- 
mehr  das  Alte  Testament  durch  Jesum."  2 

The  question  is  raised  to-day  on  every  hand,  What 
is  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  authority  and  inspira- 
tion of  these  same  Scriptures  ?  What  is  the  significance 
of  the  results  to  which  we  have  come  in  our  discussion, 
with  relation  to  this  vital  question?  How  are  we  to 
view  and  use  the  Scriptures  ?  We  can  unhesitatingly 
answer:  Not  altogether  as  the  Church  has  viewed 
them;  not  altogether  as  the  early  Fathers  viewed  and 
used  them;  no,  not  even  altogether  as  the  apostolic 
writers  used  them.     We  must  go  back  of  the  authority 

1  See  Forrest,  The  Christ  of  History  and  of  Experience,  page 
46.  2  Meinhold,  Jesus  und  das  A.  T. 


240  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

of  the  disciple  to  the  authority  of  the  Teacher  himself. 
We  are  to  view  and  use  the  Bible  as  Jesus  did.  Clearly, 
Jesus  was  not  troubled  by  the  fact  that  he  found  things 
in  the  Scriptures  which  were  imperfect.  Clearly,  he 
did  not  deem  its  writers  infallible.  Certainly,  he  dis- 
tinguished between  the  divine  revelation  and  its  human 
form  and  media.  It  would  seem  that  he  recognized  no 
doctrine  of  absolute  and  literal  inerrancy.  He  could 
set  his,  "  Verily,  I  say  unto  you,"  directly  over  against 
the  words  of  "  them  of  old  time."  He  recognized  that 
Moses  had  given  laws  which  were  not  applicable  to  all 
generations.  On  the  other  hand,  we  find  him  uttering 
his  sternest  rebukes  against  a  literalizing  and  undis- 
criminating  use  of  Scripture.  The  bearing  of  all  this 
on  those  methods  of  biblical  study  which  a  portion  of 
the  Christian  Church  unfortunately  sets  its  face  against 
is  of  the  greatest  significance.1 

The  discussion  of  our  Iyord's  use  of  prophecy  has 
led  the  writer  to  many  view-points  from  which  to  survey 
the  general  attitude  of  Jesus  towards  his  Bible.  And 
the  inevitable  conclusion  is  that,  both  in  precept  and  in 
example,  we  have  Jesus'  authority  for  the  denial  of  any 
theory  of  equal  value  to  every  part.  He  himself  was 
not  bound  by  scriptural  utterances  and  felt  free  to  di- 
verge from  them.  He  recognized  that  much  of  scrip- 
tural teaching  could  be  and  must  be  improved  upon. 

1  "  Wir  stellen  uns  mil  vollem  Bewusstsein  auf  den  Stand- 
punkt,  dass  das  Cbristentum  mit  der  ausseren  Stellung  Jesu 
zum  Alten  Testament  durchaus  nicht  stent  und  fallt ;  dass,  wo 
sie  mit  der  inneren  in  Streit  kommt,  dieser  durchaus  der  Vorzug 
zu  geben  ist,  und  behaupten,  dass  die  neuere  Forschung  auf 
dem  Gebiete  des  Alten  Testamentes  bier  in  ungesucbter  Weise 
Cbristi  Auffassung  auf  das  glanzendste  bestatigt,  nicht  aber 
irgendwie  schadigt."— Jesus  und  das  A.  T.}  page  109,  "Jesu 
innere  Stellung  zum  A.  T." 


Jesus'  View  of  His  Bible  241 

Some  of  it,  in  the  form  in  which  we  have  it,  must  be 
discarded  for  higher  teaching.  We  have  no  warrant 
for  any  theory  of  so-called  plenary  inspiration,  either 
from  the  teachings  or  from  the  example  of  Jesus.  And 
can  any  one  doubt  that  our  Lord  would  bequeath  to  his 
disciples  the  same  intellectual  freedom  that  he  claimed 
and  exercised  for  himself?  He  has  not  decided  these 
questions  in  detail  for  us.  He  has  set  us  an  example. 
And  that  example  was  a  discriminating  use  of  the  writ- 
ten word. 

The  careful  study  of  such  a  theme  forces  the  con- 
clusion upon  us  that  we  must  avoid  an  indiscriminate 
acceptance  of  the  interpretations  of  the  teachings  of  our 
Lord  presented  by  those  who  have  transmitted  to  us 
the  doctrines  of  succeeding  ages.  We  cannot  alwa)^s 
rest  upon  the  explanations  of  the  Gospel  writers  who 
have  preserved  for  us  this  priceless  teaching.  We 
must  go  back  of  Church  Fathers,  back  of  the  Apostles 
and  the  Evangelists,  back  of  all  fallible  interpreters,  to 
the  words  of  Jesus  themselves.  And  we  must  interpret 
them  for  ourselves.  The  teachings  of  the  Master  must 
be  distinguished  from  the  rest  of  Scripture  with  which 
they  are  mingled  and  must  be  assigned  an  authority  of 
their  own.  These  words  of  Jesus  must  mould  our  doc- 
trines. Our  transmitted  doctrines  must  not  be  per- 
mitted to  mould  these  teachings.  We  must  take  care 
not  to  substitute  commandments  and  traditions  of  men 
for  the  divine  utterances  of  our  Lord  and  Master.  As 
Dr.  Stalker  has  aptly  put  it,  "  Jesus  is  the  best  teacher 
of  his  own  religion." 

Does  this  conclusion  involve  some  depreciation  of  the 
Gospel  writers?  To  the  minds  of  some  it  does,  in  a 
serious  way.  Hence  the  painful  and  disastrous  at- 
tempts to  harmonize  inharmonious   things.     /To  the 


242  Jesus  and  the  Prophets 

mind  of  the  writer  of  this  book,  it  does  not  involve  any 
serious  depreciation.  But  suppose,  for  a  moment,  that 
it  did.  Behold,  a  greater  than  the  Apostles,  a  greater 
than  the  Evangelists,  a  greater  than  the  four  Gospels 
is  here! 

To  gain  the  view  and  the  interpretation  of  the  writers 
of  the  Gospels  is  not  enough.  The  unceasing  effort  of 
the  human  mind,  and  its  loftiest  endeavor,  is  to  gain, 
first,  the  vision  of  the  Christ  which  they  beheld  only 
in  a  measure,  then,  through  him,  to  recover  the  unut- 
terable vision,  of  him  "  who  is  over  all,  God  blessed 
forever.     Amen." 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Schiirer—  The  Jewish  People  in  the  Time  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Edersheim — The  Life  and  Times  of  Jesus  the  Messiah. 

Forrest — The  Christ  of  History  and  of  Experience. 

Ren  an —  Vie  dejksus. 

Weizsacker — The  Apostolic  Age  of  the  Christian  Church. 

McGiffert—  The  Apostolic  Age. 

Cone — Gospel  Criticism  and  Historic  Christianity. 

Carpenter — The  First  Three  Gospels. 

Wendt — Die  Lehre  Jesu  (Erster  Theil). 
"         The  Teaching  of  Jesus. 

Steven s — The  Johannine  Theology. 

Jiilicher — Die  Gleichnisreden  Jesu. 

Bruce —  The  Parabolic  Teaching  of  Jesus. 

Briggs — Messianic  Prophecy. 

Riehm — Messianic  Prophecy. 

Stanton—  The  Jewish  and  the  Christian  Messiah. 

Colani—JSsus-Christ  et  les  Croyances  Messianiques  de  Son 
Temps. 

Edersheim— Prophecy  and  History  in  Relation  to  the  Messiah. 

Huhn — Die   messianische    Weissagu?igen    des    israelitisch- 
judischen  Volkes  bis  zu  den  Targumim  {I.  Teil). 

Huhn— Die  alttestamentlichen  Citate  und  Reminiscenzen  im 
N.  T.  (II.  Teil). 

Briggs — The  Messiah  of  the  Gospels. 

Schwartskopff—  Die  Gottesoffenbarung  in  fesu  Christo. 
"  Die  Weissagungen  Jesu  Christi  u.  s.  w. 

Baldensperger — Das  Selbstbewusstsein  Jesu. 

Schiirer— Die  Predigt  Jesu  Christi  in  ihrem   Verhaltnisse 
sum  Alten  Testamente  und  zum  Judentum. 

Bousset— ; Jesu  Predigt  in  ihrem  Gegensatz  zum  Judentum. 

Meinhold— Jesus  und  das  A.  T. 

243 


244  Bibliography 

Kahler— Jesus  und  das  A.  T. 

Clemen — Der  Gebrauch  des  Alten  Testamentes  in  den  neu- 
testamentlichen  Schriften. 

Franke — Das  A.  T.  bei  Johannes. 

Toy — Quotations  in  the  New  Testament. 

Johnson — The  Quotations  of  the  New  Testament  from  the 
Old. 

Tholuck— Das  A.  T.  im  N.  T. 

Dalman — Die  Worte  Jesu  mit  berticksichtigung  des  nachka- 
nonischen  jud.    Schriftthums  und  der  aramaischen  Sprache. 

Wrede — Das  Messias-geheimnis. 

Drummond,  J. — PhiloJudcsus. 

Yonge—  The  Works  oj PhiloJudcsus. 

Siegfried — Philo  von  Alexandria  als  Ausleger  des  Alten 
Testamentes. 

Schmidt— " Was  XB>3  13  a  Messianic  Title?"  Journal  oj 
Biblical  Literature,  vol.  xv.,  1896,  Pts.  1  and  2,  page  36^. 

Peters— "  Christ's  Treatment  of  the  Old  Testament.  (Ibid., 
page87#.) 

Conybeare— "  The  Place  of  Prophecy  in  Christian ity."  The 
New  World,  March,  1898. 

TEXTS 

Baer  and  Delitzsch — Hebrew  Bible. 

Swete—  The  O.  T.  in  Greek. 

Ed.  D.  E.  Nestle — Novum  Testamentum  Greece. 

Tischendorf—  Novum  Testamentum  Greece. 

Westcott  and  Hort—  The  New  Testament  in  Greek. 

Bruce  and  Dods — The  Expositors'  Greek  Testament. 

Westcott  and  Hort— Introduction  to  the  New  Testament  in 
Greek. 

BJd.  Lee — Novum  Testamentum  Syriacum. 

Bensly,  Harris,  and  Burkitt — Evangelium  Syriace — E  Co- 
dice  Sinaitico. 

Wright — Synopsis  of  the  Gospels  in  Greek. 

Huck  —Synopse. 

Stevens  and  Burton — A  Harmony  oj  the  Gospels  Jor  His- 
torical Study. 


GENERAL  INDEX 


Acts,  Prophecy  in  the  Book  of, 

227  ff. 
Apocalyptical    Discourses    of 

Jesus,  the,  144  ff. 

Beatitudes,  the,  137  ff. 

Betrayal  of  Jesus,  the,  105^*. 

Beyschlag,  New  Testament 
Theology,  101. 

Briggs,  on  Messianic  Pro- 
phecy, 8,  58#.,  82,  83,  91  ff. 

Carpenter,  J.  Bstlin,  on  the 
Gospels,  52. 

Christianity  and  Judaism,  5. 

Clemen,  on  Prophecy,  67. 

Colani,  on  Messianic  Pro- 
phecy, 50. 

Cone,  Gospel  Criticism,  111. 

Cross,  Jesus'  Cry  on  the,  140., 

Dalman,    on   the    Sayings   of 

Jesus,  163. 
Daniel,  Jesus'  Use  of,  143  if. 
Davidic  Descent  of  Jesus,  the. 

43#-,  47  ff.,  5o. 
Disagreements,   an    Example 

of  Gospel,  107. 
Displacements  in  the  Gospels, 

7i#.,  79- 

Edersheim,  on  Messianic  Pro- 
phecy, 68,  171. 

Editorial  Work  in  the  Gos- 
pels, 62. 

Elijah  and  John  the  Baptist, 
63#,68. 

Epistles,  Prophecy  in  the, 
227/". 


Evangelists,  The: 
Contrasted  with  Jesus,  233. 
Relations  between,  115,  116, 

119. 
Renderings  of,  116. 
Sources  of  Citations  by,  113. 
Subjective     Tendencies    of, 

8#,  6i#.,  81,  89,94,  95- 
Use  of  Prophecy  by,  93,  124, 

230. 
Variations  in  the  Narratives 

of,  119,  124,  145,  180  Note. 

Formulas  Introducing  Quota- 
tions, 121  ff. 

Fulfilment,  91,  94,  122,  123, 
124,  125,  127,  165  ff.,  195, 
198^".,  202. 

Fulfilment,  Idea  of,  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  103, 108,  no, 
in,  112. 

Gospels,  the : 

Credibility  of,  128. 

Sources  of,  9. 
Gould,  Commentary  on  Mark, 

237. 

Hellenistic-Jewish  Literature, 

2H# 
Holtzmann,       Commentaries, 

35,  64,  73,  176. 
Hiihn,  on  Messianic  Prophecy, 

8,  199. 

Inspiration  of  the  Scriptures, 
Jesus'  View  on  the,  235^., 
239,  240,  241. 


245 


246 


General  Index 


Interpolations  and  Insertions 
in  the  Gospels,  97  Note,  107, 
in,  112,  145,  170,  171,  172, 
173,  175. 


Jerusalem,  the  Destruction  of, 

i33/"-»  145. 

Jesus  : 

An  intellectual  Estimate  of, 

Authority   of,   the,   Chapter 

I.»  239- 

Biblical  Criticism,  his  Ref- 
lation to,  47. 

Contrasted  with  the  Evange- 
lists on  Prophecy,  233. 

Daniel,  His  Use  of,  143  ff., 
152. 

Davidic  Descent  of,  43, tfff. , 
50- 

Development,  His  Theory 
of,  17. 

Fulfilment,  His  Idea  of, 
123  ff.,  127,  198^,  202. 

God's  Grace,  His  View  of, 
8o#,  178. 

Inspiration,  His  Idea  of,  235. 

John  the  Baptist,  His  Con- 
nection with,  180,  182. 

Judaism,   His    Relation   to, 

4,  183. 
Judas,  His  Relation  to,  10^  ff. 
Kingdom  of  God,  His  Idea 

of,  148  ff.,  209. 
Law,  His   Attitude  to  the, 

i66#,  202. 
Messianic     Idea     of,     181, 

197/".,  209. 
Prophecy  and  the  Prophets, 

His  Relation  to,  107,  136, 

179,  186,  188,  190  #,  192, 

194,  195. 
Rabbis,  Contrasted  with  the, 

46,  48,  50,  63,  68. 
Ritual,    His    View    of  the, 

184,  186. 
Sayings    of,    the    Recently 

Discovered,  80. 


Scripture  : 

His  Estimate  of,  4. 

His  Intimacy  with,  99. 

His  Use  of,  6,  153,  157, 193, 
209,  212. 
Second  Coming  of,  151. 
Son  of  God,  the,  ioi#. 
Supper,  the  Last,   of,    103, 

Universalism,  His  Doctrine 
of,  184,  185. 
John  the  Baptist,  63 #.,68, 180, 

182. 
John,  the  Gospel  oj : 

Composition  of,  104,  111. 

Disagreement  with  Synop- 
tists,  107. 

Fulfilment,  its  Idea  of,  103, 
108,  no,  III,  112,  223#. 

Interpolations  in,  107,  III, 
112.  ' 

Language  of,  135. 

Nature  of,  10. 

Peculiarities  of,  96,  107. 

Prophecy,  Its  Use  of,  223  ff. 

Texts  of,  118. 
Jonah,  the  Sign  of,  12,  174. 
Judaism  and  Christianity,  5. 
Judas  and  Jesus,  \o^ff. 
Jiilicher,  on  the  Parables,  17, 

32,  33- 

Kingdom  of  God,  \&ff.,  209. 

Jesus'  Idea  of,  148  ff. 
Kingdom    of    Heaven,     the, 

I58#. 

Last  Supper,  the,  io3# 
Law,  the,  109. 

Jesus'      Attitude      towards, 

166  ff.,  202. 
Logia,  the,  89,  114. 
Lord's  Prayer,  the,  133. 
Luke,  the  Gospel  of  ; 

Composition  of,  9. 

Insertions,      examples     of, 
172. 

Prophecy,  its  Use  of,  2i8#. 

Texts  of,  118. 


General  Index 


247 


Manicheans,     on     Prophecy, 

23 1  ff. 
Mark,  the  Gospel  of : 

Composition  of,  9. 

Insertions,     examples      of, 
171. 

Prophecy,  its  Use  of,  218  ff. 

Source,  as  a,  114. 

Texts  of,  118. 
Matthew,  the  Gospel  of: 

Composition  of,  9. 

Insertions  and  Expansions 
in,  38,  41,  42,  65,  145,  170, 

Prophecy,  its  Use  of,  214^ 

Texts  of,  117. 
Meinhold,  on  Prophecy,  240. 
Messiah,  the: 

Jesus'  Idea  of,  181,  197  #., 
209.     ^ 

In  Prophecy,  i95#. 
Mustard  Seed,  Parable  of  the, 

15. 


Old  Testament,  the : 
Jesus  in  the,  202. 
Sources  of  Texts,  ii3#->  "5- 


Palestinian-Jewish  Literature, 

204#. 

Parables,  the: 

Mustard  Seed,  the,  15. 

Sower,  the,  23. 

Unworthy        Husbandmen, 
the,  30. 
Passion  Accounts,  the,  140. 
Peter,  the  Gospel  of,  141. 
Philo,  21 1#. 
Prophecy  : 

Evangelists  in  the  Use  of,  25. 

Messianic  Idea  in,  195,  196. 

Nature  of,  7,  I94#- 

Typical  Use  of,  no. 
Psalms,  the  Messianic,  103. 

Quotations,  Composite,  27. 


Rabbis,  Interpretations  of  the, 

204#. 

Renan,  Life  of  fesus,  6,  51. 

Resurrection,  the: 

Gospel  Accounts  of,  140. 
In  the  Old  Testament,  92. 
Post  -  Resurrection     Narra- 
tives, 222. 

Riehm,  on  Messianic  Pro- 
phecy, 8. 

Sayings  of  Jesus,  the  Newly 

Discovered,  80. 
Schurer,    The  Jewish  People, 

67,  233. 
Septuagint,   the  Influence  of 

the,  125. 
Servant  of  Jehovah,  the,  76, 

9°.  91*  93- 

Sinaitic  Palimpsest,  the,  37, 44- 

Smith,  George  Adam,  Com- 
mentaries, 58,  59,  67,  77,  86, 
92. 

Son  of  God,  the,  102,  153. 

Son  of  Man,  the,  87,  154  ff. 

Stanton,  on  Messianic  Pro- 
phecy, 52,  155. 

Stevens,  George  B. : 

The  Johannine    Theology, 

98,  in. 
The  Theology  of  the  New 
Testament,  150. 

Synoptic  Problem,  the,  gff 

Toy,  on  New  Testament  Quo- 
tations, 66,  75,  98. 

Typical  Use  of  Prophecy,  the, 
no. 

Variations  in  the  Gospels, 
some  examples  of,  119,  i45> 
180. 

Weiss,  New  Testament  Theol- 
ogy, 25. 

Wellhausen,  59. 

Wendt,  on  the  Teaching  of 
Jesus,  25,  49.  64,  80. 


INDEX  OF  THE  MAIN  TEXTS  REFERRED  TO 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 


Mark 
1:2. 

3:  26 
4:  12 
4:  30-32 

7:  I-I3 

7:  6,  7 

8:  18 

9:  12 

9:  48 
11:  17 
12:2. 
12:  10,  11 
12 :  36,  37 
13:  12 

13:  x4 
13:  19 
13:  24 
13:  26 
14:  i8#. 
14:  21 
14:  27 
14:  49 
14:  62 
15:  28 
15  =  34 
Matthew 

5  :  3-12 

5:  17 

5  :  17,  18 

5:2i# 

9:  13 

10:  21 
10 :  35,  36 


63 
9i 
18 

15 

4 

54 

18 

170 

61 

25 

29 

39 

43 

5i 

i44# 

146 

146 

147 

106 

171 

57 

89,  170 

150 

89,  93 

I4Q# 

i37#- 
127 

165 

4 

5,  7o 

5i 

5i 


Matthew — Con 

tin 

led 

PAGE 

11  :  10 63 

11  :  23      .     . 

68 

12  :  7  .     .     . 

70 

12 :  38-42      . 

• 

' 

174 

12  :  39,  40     . 

12 

13:  13-15      • 

18 

13:  3i,  32 

16 

13  :  32      . 

15 

15  :  8,  9  .     . 

8,54 

21  :  i-ii  . 

172 

21 :  13,  14 

25 

21  :  33      • 

29 

21 :  42 

5,  39 

21  :  44      . 

84,85 

22  :  14 

35 

22  :  43-45 

43 

24:  15      • 

I44# 

24  :  21 

146 

24:  29      . 

.     146 

24  :  30      . 

147 

26:  21  ff. 

106 

26 :  31      . 

•       57 

26  :  54-56 

.     169 

26 :  64 

.     150 

27 :  46      . 

140  ff 

Luke 

1 :  76      .     .     .          .       63 

4 :  18,  19 

.     •       73 

6 :  20-23 

•      137  ff 

7:  27      . 

.     •       63 

8:  10      . 

.     .       18 

10:  15      . 

.       68 

248 


Index  of  the  Main  Texts 


249 


ike 
12 : 

—Continu 
52,  53     • 

13: 

19      .     . 

13: 

18,  19     . 

13: 

28-30      . 

14: 

i6#.       . 

20 : 

9  .     .     . 

20: 

17      .     . 

20: 

18      .     . 

20 : 

42,  43     • 

21 

22      .     . 

21 

26      .     . 

21 

27  „'     ' 

22 

21  #.       . 

22 

37      •     • 

22 

69      .     • 

23 

46      .     . 

51 
15 
16 

35 
35 
29 

39 
84,85 

43 
146 
146 
147 
106 

88 
150 
142 


John 

4:  10-14 
5  :  37-4o 
5  :  45-47 
6:  45  • 
6:  66  . 
7:  38      • 

9:  39      • 
10:  25      . 

10:  34      • 
12:  38^. 

12  :  40 

13  :  18      . 
Chapters  xiii 
15  :  22-24 
15  :  25      ■ 
18:  if.  . 


to 


XVll. 


98 

168 
167 

94 
22 

9l 
18 

24 

99 

112 

18 

102 

103 

23 

108 
169 


THE  OlyD  TESTAMENT 


Daniel  PAGE 

2 :  34-45      ....       84 
4 :  9  [12]     .     .     .     •  15,  16 

7:  13 *47 

8:  10 147 

9:  27      .     .     .     .      144  ff- 

12  :  1 146 

Bzekiel 

17:  23 15,16 

Hosea 

6:6 70 

Isaiah 

5:1,2 29 

6:  gff.   ....      18,  21 

8 :  14,  15     ...     .       84 

14:  13-15      ....       68 

29:  13 54 

53 :  12 88 

54 :  13 94 

61  :  1,  2 73 

66:24 61 

Jeremiah 

6:  21 86 


Malachi  PAGE 

3:1 63 

Micah 

7:6 51 

Psalms 

8:7 43 

22: 141 

22  :  2 14° 

3i  :  5 J42 

35 :  19 Io8 

41  :  10 102 

69  :  5 108 

82  :  6 99 

104 :  12-17      ....  15 

104:  16 17 

1 10  :  1 43 

118:  22,  23     .     .     .     .  39 

Zechariah 

9:9 z72 

11  :  7,  8 58 

11 :  15-17,     ....  58 

13 :  7-9    •     •     •     •  57, 59 


DATE  DUE 

*»*— - ^ 

!<* 

^^^W^AtWW-lNkflSltVy^ 

' 

Jlft^^r^ 

BB$$9B£ 

JBRB^RiMW^  mix* 

"nmapiM 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  U.S.A. 

1 


